This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-02-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The findings of fact and the conclusions of law of the CHR are merely recommendatory and, therefore, not binding to this Court. The reason is that the CHR's constitutional mandate extends only to the investigation of all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights.[224] As held in Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights[225] and a number of subsequent cases,[226] the CHR is only a fact-finding body, not a court of justice or a quasi-judicial agency. It is not empowered to adjudicate claims on the merits or settle actual case or controversies. The power to investigate is not the same as adjudication:The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights. But fact-finding is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or official. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function, properly speaking. To be considered such, the faculty of receiving evidence and making factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to those factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or determined authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. This function, to repeat, the Commission does not have. | |||||
|
2014-04-21 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| The distinctions between an investigative function such as that taken by the LMB in this case and an adjudicative function such as that described in Section 3.1 above have been extensively discussed by the Court in the case of Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights,[41] to wit: "Investigate," commonly understood, means to examine, explore, inquire or delve or probe into, research on, study. The dictionary definition of "investigate" is "to observe or study closely; inquire into systematically: 'to search or inquire into' x x x to subject to an official probe x x x: to conduct an official inquiry." The purpose of [an] investigation, of course is to discover, to find out, to learn, obtain information. Nowhere included or intimated is the notion of settling, deciding or resolving a controversy involved in the facts inquired into by application of the law to the facts established by the inquiry. | |||||
|
2012-07-24 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Under E.O. 12, the PAGC was given the authority to "investigate or hear administrative cases or complaints against all presidential appointees in the government"[23] and to "submit its report and recommendations to the President."[24] The IAD-ODESLA is a fact-finding and recommendatory body to the President, not having the power to settle controversies and adjudicate cases. As the Court ruled in Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights,[25] and later reiterated in Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission:[26] | |||||
|
2010-12-07 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The distinction between the power to investigate and the power to adjudicate was delineated by the Court in Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights.[59] Thus: "Investigate," commonly understood, means to examine, explore, inquire or delve or probe into, research on, study. The dictionary definition of "investigate" is "to observe or study closely: inquire into systematically: "to search or inquire into: x x to subject to an official probe x x: to conduct an official inquiry." The purpose of investigation, of course, is to discover, to find out, to learn, obtain information. Nowhere included or intimated is the notion of settling, deciding or resolving a controversy involved in the facts inquired into by application of the law to the facts established by the inquiry. | |||||
|
2010-12-07 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the same vein, the creation of the PTC is not justified by the President's power of control. Control is essentially the power to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former with that of the latter.[47] Clearly, the power of control is entirely different from the power to create public offices. The former is inherent in the Executive, while the latter finds basis from either a valid delegation from Congress, or his inherent duty to faithfully execute the laws. | |||||
|
2008-10-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights,[57] this Court sets out the distinction between investigative and adjudicative functions, thus:"Investigate," commonly understood, means to examine, explore, inquire or delve or probe into, research on, study. The dictionary definition of "investigate" is "to observe or study closely; inquire into systematically: "to search or inquire into" xx to subject to an official probe xx: to conduct an official inquiry." The purpose of an investigation, of course is to discover, to find out, to learn, obtain information. Nowhere included or intimated is the notion of settling, deciding or resolving a controversy involved in the facts inquired into by application of the law to the facts established by the inquiry. | |||||
|
2004-07-08 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| For that matter, Cariño v. Commissioner on Human Rights,[107] likewise cited by Philcemcor, is also inapplicable owing to the different statutory regimes prevailing over that case and the present petition. In Cariño, the Court ruled that the constitutional power of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to investigate human rights' violations did not extend to adjudicating claims on the merits.[108] Philcemcor claims that the functions of the Tariff Commission being "only investigatory," it could neither decide nor adjudicate.[109] | |||||