B-C-D.docx - Simon vs. Comm. on Human Rights G.R. No....

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 9 pages.

The preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 9 pages.
Simon vs. Comm. on Human Rights G.R. No. 100150 January 05, 1994Facts :Petitioner Mayor Simon asks to prohibit CHR from further hearing and investigating "demolition case" onvendors of North EDSA.Constitutional Issue :Whether the CHR is authorized to hear and decide on the "demolition case" and to impose a fine for contempt.Ruling :Section 18, Article XIII, of the 1987 Constitution empowered the CHR to investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights. The demolition of stalls, sari-sari stores and carenderiacannot fall within the compartment of "human rights violations involving civil and political rights".Human rights are the basic rights which inhere in man by virtue of his humanity and are the same in all parts of the world.Human rights include civil rights (right to life, liberty and property; freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, academic freedom; rights of the accused to due process of law), political rights (right to elect public officials, to be elected to public office, and to form political associations and engage in politics), social rights (right to education, employment and social services.Human rights are entitlements that inhere in the individual person from the sheer fact of his humanity...Because they are inherent, human rights are not granted by the State but can only be recognized and protected by it.Human rights includes all the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.Human rights are rights that pertain to man simply because he is human. They are part of his natural birth, right, innate and inalienable.CIVIL RIGHTS - are those that belong to every citizen and are not connected with the organization or administration of the government.POLITICAL RIGHTS - are rights to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of the government.PBM EMPLOYEES V. PBMFACTS: Petitioners herein alleged that they informed the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills of their decision to have a mass demonstration at Malacañang, in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police. The company respondent pleaded to exclude the employees in the first shift to join the mass demonstration, however the petitioners still included them. As a result, the company respondent filed a case thru the city prosecutor and charged the demonstrating employees of violation of the CBA. Trial court rendered judgment in favor of the respondent company, and the petitioners failed to file a timely motion for reconsideration.ISSUE: WON the case dismissal as a consequence of a procedural fault violates due process.HELD: Yes. The decision of the CIR to dismiss the petition based on technicality (being 2 days late) was rendered null and void. (The constitutional rights have dominance over procedural rules.) And, the company was directed to reinstate the eight officers with full backpay from date of separation minus the one day's pay and whatever earnings they might have realized from other sources during their

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 9 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
Atty. Zamora
Tags

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture