For Your Data Epza Vs Committee Of Human Rights, G.R. No. 101476 Representative Brief Summary
February 01, 2019
Edit
EPZA vs Commission of Human Rights, G.R. No. 101476 representative brief summary
April 14, 1992
Facts: EPZA purchased province from Filoil Refinery Corp. too earlier petitioner could convey possession of lands, several individuals had entered the premises too planted agricultural products therein without permission from EPZA or its predecessor, Filoil. EPZA paid a P10,000-financial-assistance to those who accepted the same too signed quitclaims, alongside them private respondents(Valles, Aledia). Ten years later, private respondents filed inwards the CHR complaints for violation of Human Rights. CHR issued an injunction commanding EPZA to desist from committing such acts. EPZA filed inwards SC this petition for certiorari too prohibition.
Issue: Does CHR produce got the authorization to number an injuction order?
Ruling: CHR does non produce got the authorization to number an injunction order. It is express alone to investigation too non to campaign too resolve merits. The "preventive measures too legal aid services" mentioned inwards the Constitution refer to extrajudicial too judicial remedies which the CHR may attempt from the proper courts on behalf of the victims of human rights violations.
Petition for certiorari too prohibition is GRANTED. The orders of injunction past times Commission of Human Rights are annulled too laid upwards aside.