Dela Cruz, Juan
BSC-42000
EPZA vs. CHR
G.R. NO. 101476
April 14, 1992
DOCTRINE: CHR is not a court of justice nor even a quasi-judicial body. 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. Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ.
FACTS: P.D. 1980 was issued reserving and designating certain parcels of land in Rosario and General
Trias, Cavite, as the "Cavite Export Processing Zone" (CEPZ). For purposes of development, the area was
divided into Phases I to IV. A parcel of Phase IV was bought by Filoil Refinery Corporation, formerly
Filoil Industrial Estate, Inc. The same parcel was later sold by Filoil to the Export Processing Zone
Authority (EPZA).Before EPZA could take possession of the area, several individuals had entered the
premises and planted agricultural products therein without permission from EPZA or its predecessor,
Filoil. To convince the intruders to depart peacefully, EPZA, in 1981, paid a P10,000-financial-assistance
to those who accepted the same and signed quitclaims. Among them were Teresita Valles and Alfredo
Aledia, father of respondent Loreto Aledia. Ten years later, on May 10, 1991, respondent Teresita Valles,
Loreto Aledia and Pedro Ordoñez filed in the respondent Commission on Human Rights (CHR) a joint
complaint (Pinagsamahang Salaysay) praying for "justice and other reliefs and remedies" ("Katarungan at
iba pang tulong"). The CHR conducted an investigation of the [Link] alleged that on March 20,
1991, at 10:00 o'clock in the morning. Engineer Neron Damondamon, EPZA Project Engineer,
accompanied by his subordinates and members of the 215th PNP Company, brought a bulldozer and a
crane to level the area occupied by the private respondents who tried to stop them by showing a copy of a
letter from the Office of the President of the Philippines ordering postponement of the bulldozing.
However, the letter was crumpled and thrown to the ground by a member of Damondamon's group who
proclaimed that: "The President in Cavite is Governor Remulla!”
The CHR issued an Order of injunction commanding EPZA, the 125th PNP Company and Governor
Remulla and their subordinates to desist from committing further acts of demolition, terrorism, and
harassment until further orders from the Commission and to appeal before the Commission on May 27,
1991 at 9:00 a.m. for a dialogue (Annex A). Two weeks later, the same group accompanied by men of
Governor Remulla, again bulldozed the area. They allegedly handcuffed private respondent Teresita
Valles, pointed their firearms at the other respondents, and fired a shot in the air.
On May 28, 1991, CHR Chairman Mary Concepcion Bautista issued another injunction Order reiterating
her order of May 17, 1991 and expanded it to include the Secretary of Public Works and Highways, the
contractors, and their subordinates. On July 1, 1991, EPZA filed in the CHR a motion to lift the Order of
Injunction for lack of authority to issue injunctive writs and temporary restraining orders. On August 16,
1991, the Commission denied the motion. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Does the CHR have jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction or restraining order against supposed
violators of human rights, to compel them to cease and desist from continuing the acts complained of?
HELD: The constitutional provision directing the CHR to "provide for preventive measures and legal aid
services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection" may not be
construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining order or writ of injunction for, if
that were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so. "Jurisdiction is conferred only by
the Constitution or by law". It is never derived by implication. Evidently, the "preventive measures and
legal aid services" mentioned in the Constitution refer to extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a
preliminary writ of injunction) which the CHR may seek from the proper courts on behalf of the victims
of human rights violations. Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the
writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued "by the judge of any court in which the
action is pending [within his district], or by a Justice of the Court of Appeals, or of the Supreme Court. It
may also be granted by the judge of a Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] in any action
pending in an inferior court within his district." (Sec. 2, Rule 58, Rules of Court). A writ of preliminary
injunction is an ancillary remedy. It is available only in a pending principal action, for the preservation or
protection of the rights and interest of a party thereto, and for no other purpose.