SIMON VS.

CHR provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of all persons
with the Philippines.
G.R. No. 100150
January 5, 1994 ISSUE of the CASE
Whether or not the 1987 Constitution only vested an investigatory
BRIGIDO R. SIMON, JR., CARLOS QUIMPO, CARLITO power with Commission on Human Rights over violations of human
ABELARDO, and GENEROSO OCAMPO, petitioners, rights in the Philippines.
vs.
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ROQUE FERMO, AND
OTHERS AS JOHN DOES, respondents. HELD
The Supreme Court ruled that what is vested to the Commission on
Ponente: Vitug, J.: Human Rights is not an adjudicatory power but only an
investigatory power over violations of human rights involving civil
and political rights. Hence, the CHR cannot cite the petitioners in
FACTS contempt for such prescinds from an adjudicative power it does not
Petitioners acted in authority to issue a Demolition Notice possess. Moreover, such demolition of stalls, sari-sari stores, and
received by private respondents, informing them the demolition of carinderia is ruled not falling within the compartment of human
their stalls along the premises of North EDSA to give way to a rights violations involving civil and political rights.
peoples park. After the latter went before the Commission on
Human Rights (CHR) asking to stop such demolition, CHR issued
an Order directing the petitioners to desist and appear before them.
However, petitioners still carried out the demolition. CHR, from the
sworn statements of private respondents and its own ocular
inspection, ordered in a resolution the disbursement of financial
assistance for the private respondents and again directed the
petitioner to desist from further demolition or be cited for contempt
and arrest. Petitioners questioned, in a motion to dismiss, questioned
CHRs jurisdiction, contending that its authority confined only to
the investigation of violations of civil and political rights under
Section 18 Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution, and not the
privilege to engage in business. CHR opined that the Constitution
intended the office to be a quasi-judicial body with the power to
BOROVSKY VS. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION permission to bring the petitioner to Russia, thus failure for the
deportation to be carried out.
90 Phil 107
G.R. No. L-4352 ISSUE of the CASE
September 28, 1951 Whether or not a stateless, undesirable alien may be subject to a
prolonged detention for purposes of carrying out his deportation.
VICTOR BOROVSKY, petitioners,
vs.
THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND THE HELD
DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondents. The Supreme Court ruled that while aliens illegally staying in the
Philippines have no right of asylum therein, even if they are
Ponente: Tuason, J.: stateless, foreign nationals, not enemy, against whom no criminal
charges have been formally made or judicial order issued, may not
indefinitely be kept in detention. The protection against deprivation
FACTS of liberty, without due process of law and except for crimes
Borovsky, the petitioner, claiming to be a stateless citizen who was committed against the laws of the land is not limited to Philippine
born in China with Russian heritage, was first arrested and ordered citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless
to be deported to China for being an undesirable alien, a vagrant, of nationality. There is no allegation that the petitioners entry into
and a habitual drunkard. He was not allowed, however, to land in the Philippines was not lawful.
China for he was not a Chinese national and was not provided with
an entry visa. He was then brought back to the new Bilibid Prison
where he was confined. He was granted provisional release for a
period of six months but before the expiration of said period, he was
rearrested and remained in confinement since. Hence, petitioner
filed his second petition for habeas corpus, with the first pertaining
to his initial detention having been dismissed two year before the
new petition for it was ruled that such temporary detention is
necessary to carry out the process and pending arrangement of
deportation. Respondents contended that the return of the writ was
to avail every opportunity presented to carry out deportation as he
was rearrested to be deported by placing him in a Russian vessel.
The captain of such vessel, however, refused as he had no