CONSTITUTION I

A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA

TOPIC Art VI (21): Legislative Investigation; Power to a. Directing an inquiry in aid of legislation on the alleged
Punish a Person under Investigation; Contempt and improprieties in the operations, causing anomalous losses, of
Detention the respective Board of Directors of:
CASE NO. G.R. No. 174340 i. The Philippines Overseas Telecommunications
CASE NAME Sabio v. Gordon Corporation (POTC)
PONENTE Sandoval-Guiterrez ii. Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation
(PHILCOMSAT), and
PETITIONER Presidential Commission on Good Government iii. PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation (PHC)
(PCGG) Chairman, Camilo L. Sabio; and directors b. Factual Antecedent:
and officers of PHILCOMSAT Holdings i. That in the last quarter of 2005, the Representation
Corporation and Entertainment Expense of the PHC skyrocketed
RESPONDENT Richard Gordon, in his Capacity as Chairman, and to P4.3 million, as compared to the previous year's
members of The Committee on Government mere P106 thousand
Corporations and Public Enterprises ii. That some board members established wholly owned
TYPE OF A consolidation of three petitions: PHC subsidiary called Telecommunications Center,
CASE 1.) Sabio’s Petition for Issuance of Writ of Inc. (TCI), where PHC funds are allegedly siphoned
Habeas Corpus 1. Where in 18 months, over P73 million had
2.) Sabio’s Petition for Certiorari and been allegedly advanced to TCI without any
Prohibition accountability report given to PHC and
3.) PHILCOMSAT’s Petition for Certiorari and PHILCOMSAT
Prohibition iii. That the Philippine Star reported that the executive
MEMBER Lead Dampil committee of PHILCOMSAT has precipitately
released P265 million and granted P125 million loan
ISSUE to a relative of an executive committee member
PRIMARY ISSUE c. 28 March 2006, transferred the conduct of investigations to:
1. W/N Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 is repealed by the 1987 Constitution i. The Committee on Government Corporations and
INCIDENTAL ISSUE Public Enterprises (the Committee)
2. W/N Senate Committees have the Power of Contempt
3. W/N Committee has violated any civil right of the petitioners 2. 8 May 2006, under the authority of Senator Richard Gordon (Sen.
Gordon), the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG)
RELEVANT FACTS Chairman, Camilo L. Sabio (Sabio), was invited to be one of the
resource persons in the Public Meeting in pursuance to P.S. No. 455
1. 20 February 2006, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago introduced a. 9 May 2006, Sabio declined the investigation by invoking
Philippine Senate Resolution No. 455 (P.S. No. 455) and was Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1
submitted to the Senate

1
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
i. It provides that: "No member or staff of the [PCGG]
shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any
judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding
concerning matters within its official [duties]."
1. [Purpose of the Rule]: to ensure PCGG's
unhampered performance of its task
ii. [Background]: on February 28, 1986, former
President Corazon C. Aquino installed her regime by
issuing Executive Order (E.O.) No. 1 – which also
created the PCGG, and the rules therewith.
3. 10 August 2006, Sen. Gordon issued a Subpoena Ad Testificandum
requiring Sabio, PCGG commissioners, and officers and directors of
PHILCOMSAT to appear in the Public Hearing on 23 August 2006
still in pursuance of P.S. No. 455.
a. 18 August 2006, Sabio still refused, still invoking Section
4(b) of E.O. No. 1
1. PHILCOMSAT refused, raising issues on
the propriety of the legislative investigation
ii. Thereafter, under the authority of Sen. Gordon,
another notice was given to Sabio requiring him still
to appear and testify, this time on 6 September 2006
1. 4 September 2006, Sabio still declined.
4. 7 September 2006, Sen Gordon issued an Order requiring Sabio and
the Commissioners to show cause why they shouldn’t be held in
contempt of the Senate.
a. 11 September 2006, they submitted their Compliance and
Explanation,
1. still citing Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1
2. that the subject matter of the investigation is
still under pending cases before the regular
courts – thus sub judice rule
a. citing Bengzon v. Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee
5. Unconvinced, the Committee directed the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms to
place Sabio and his commissioners under arrest for contempt.
a. The order bears the approval of Senate President Villar and
the majority of the Committees' members.
Thus, three petitions were made:
1.) Sabio and the Commissioner’s petition for Habeas Corpus against the
Committee; and Sabio and the Commissioner’s petition for certiorari
and prohibition. Both petitions Alleging that:
a. Committee disregarded Sec.4(b) of E.O. No. 1
b. Committee’s inquiries are not in aid of legislation
c. Inquiries were made in the absence of duly published Senate
Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation
d. Committee is NOT vested with the Power of Contempt
2.) PHILCOMSAT’s petition for certiorari and prohibition, alleging that:
a. Committee has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
b. Inquiries were made in the absence of duly published Senate
Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation
c. Subpoenas are void for being issued without authority
d. the conduct of legislative investigation constitutes undue
encroachment into justiciable controversies over which
courts and tribunals have already acquired jurisdiction
e. the subpoenas violated petitioners' rights to privacy and
against self-incrimination
In their comments, the Committee countered that:
1.) the issues raised in the petitions involve political questions over
which this Court has no jurisdiction
2.) Sec.4(b) has already been repealed by the 1987 Constitution
3.) the Committee is vested with Power of Contempt
4.) Committee has not violated any civil right of the individual
petitioners, such as their privacy and self-incrimination
5.) The investigation does not unduly encroach on justiciable
controversies
2
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
RATIO DECIDENDI
1.) YES – Sec. 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 is repealed by the 1987 Constitution.
RULE: Section 3, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution states that:
“All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of
instructions, and other executive issuances not inconsistent with this
Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed, or
revoked.” (Thus, the real issue now is whether Section 4(b) of E.O.
No. 1 is unconstitutional or not.)
APPLICATION:
A. Section 21, Article VI (Congress’ Power of Inquiry)
This provision provides that: “The Senate or the House of
Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published
rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by
such inquiries shall be respected.”
The 1987 Constitution recognizes the power of investigation, not just
of Congress, but also of "any of its committee." It constitutes a direct
conferral of investigatory power upon the committees as well, and
it means that the mechanisms which the Houses can take in order to
effectively perform its investigative function – such as the Power of
Inquiry and Power of Contempt – are also available to the committees,
such as herein Committee on Government Corporations and Public
Enterprises.
a. AMERICAN JURSIPRUDENCE
Before the Congress’ Power of Inquiry was made explicit by
the 1973 Constitution and was expanded by the 1987
Constitution, it has already been recognized in foreign
jurisdictions, and adopted in the Philippines through the case
of Arnault v. Nazareno, in citing U.S. case McGrain v.
Daugherty:
“Although there is no provision in the Constitution
expressly investing either House of Congress with
power to make investigations and exact testimony to
the end that it may exercise its legislative functions
advisedly and effectively, such power is so far
incidental to the legislative function as to be implied.
In other words, the power of inquiry — with process
to enforce it — is an essential and appropriate
auxiliary to the legislative function”
As Section 4(b) exempts the PCGG members and staff from the
Congress' Power of Inquiry, it is in direct contention against the 1987
Constitution.
B. Section 1, Article XI (Principle of Public Accountability)
This provision provides that: “Public office is a public trust. Public
officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people,
serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”
As Section 4(b) is in the nature of an immunity – by placing the PCGG
members and staff beyond the reach of courts, Congress, and other
administrative bodies – it is inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution.
C. Section 28, Article II (Policy of Full Disclosure), and Section 7,
Article III (Right to Public Information)
Sec. 28, Art. II provides that: “Subject to reasonable conditions
prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy
of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving
public interest.”
Sec. 7, Art. III provides that: “The right of the people to information
on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to
official records xxx pertaining to official acts xxx shall be
afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law.”
3
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote
transparency, and as well as provide the people sufficient information
to enable them to exercise effectively their constitutional rights. The
right to information goes hand-in-hand with the the conduct of
inquiries in aid of legislation – as it is not only intended to benefit
Congress, but also the citizenry. The extent to which the people’s right
to participate and be involved in government acts – such as legislation
of certain laws – largely depends on how much they know as well.
As Section 4(b) limits or obstructs the power of Congress to secure
from PCGG members and staff information and other data in aid of
its power to legislate, it is inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution.
2.) YES – Senate Committees have the Power of Contempt.
NOTE: The Order of Arrest for "contempt of Senate Committees and the
Philippine Senate" was approved by Senate President Villar and
signed by fifteen (15) Senators. From this, it can be concluded that
the Order is under the authority, not only of the respondent Senate
Committees, but of the entire Senate.
RULE: Section 21, Article VI grants the power of inquiry not only to the
Senate and the House of Representatives, but also to any of their
respective committees; and the conferral of the legislative power of
inquiry upon any committee of Congress must carry with it all powers
necessary and proper for its effective discharge – such as the Power
to hold someone in contempt. (See: Ratio 1, Rule 1(A) Application)
a. JURSIPRUDENCE
The Philippines through the case of Arnault v. Nazareno,
also in citing U.S. case McGrain v. Daugherty:
McGrain: “Experience has shown that mere
requests for such information are often unavailing,
and also that information which is volunteered is not
always accurate or complete; so some means of
compulsion is essential to obtain what is needed .”
Arnault: When the framers of the Constitution choose to
adopt the principle of separation of powers, a it must have
intended each department's authority to be full and complete.
How could the authority and power become complete if it is
impotent by itself to punish or deal with acts committed
against its authority or dignity?
FURTHER: In Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative, Inc.
v. Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete, The Court
characterized contempt power as a matter of self-preservation
3.) NO – the Committee did not violate any civil rights.
RULE: The power of inquiry must be subject to the limitations placed by the
Constitution on government action, especially the Bill of Rights.
APPLICATION:
A. Right to Privacy
The court must determine whether: (1) the directors and officers of
PHILCOMSAT has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy; and if
so, (2) whether that expectation has been violated by unreasonable
government intrusion. But the right to privacy is not absolute where there
is an overriding compelling state interest.
PHILCOMSAT has no reasonable expectation of privacy over matters
involving their offices in a corporation where the government has interest.
The alleged anomalies in the PHILCOMSAT, PHC and POTC, ranging
in millions of pesos, and the conspiratorial participation of the PCGG and
its officials are compelling reasons for the Senate to exact vital
information from the directors and officers of PHILCOMSAT, as well as
from Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners.
4
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
B. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
What is important is that respondent Senate Committees have sufficient
Rules to guide them when the right against self-incrimination is invoked.
Section 19 of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in
Aid of Legislation states that:
“A witness can invoke his right against self-incrimination only when
a question tends to elicit an answer that will incriminate him is
propounded to him. However, he may offer to answer any question in
an executive session.
No person can refuse to testify or be placed under oath or affirmation
or answer questions before an incriminatory question is asked. His
invocation of such right does not by itself excuse him from his duty
to give testimony.
In such a case, the Committee, by a majority vote of the members
present there being a quorum, shall determine whether the right has
been properly invoked. If the Committee decides otherwise, it shall
resume its investigation and the question or questions previously
refused to be answered shall be repeated to the witness. If the latter
continues to refuse to answer the question, the Committee may punish
him for contempt for contumacious conduct.”
DISPOSITIVE POSITION
Wherefore the petitions are DENIED. Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 is declared
REPEALED by the 1987 Constitution. The petitioners are ordered to comply
with the Subpoena Ad Testificandum issued by respondent Senate
Committees.
Petition for Habeas Corpus is DENIED for being moot because per agreement
of the parties, petitioner Chairman Sabio was allowed to go home.
DOCTRINE/PRECEDENT
For the purposes of the class topic, this case
(1) HOLDS that Senate Committees have the Power of Contempt.
Section 21, Article VI grants the power of inquiry not only to the
Senate and the House of Representatives, but also to any of their
respective committees; and the conferral of the legislative power of
inquiry upon any committee of Congress must carry with it all powers
necessary and proper for its effective discharge – such as the Power
to hold someone in contempt
RELEVANT LAWS
1.) Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1
“No member or staff of the [PCGG] shall be required to testify or
produce evidence in any judicial, legislative or administrative
proceeding concerning matters within its official [duties].”
2.) Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
“The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective
committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance
with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons
appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.”
3.) Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution
“Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at
all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism
and justice, and lead modest lives.”
4.) Section 28, Article II of the 1987 Constitution
“Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts
and implements a policyof full public disclosure of all its transactions
involving public interest.”
5.) Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
“The right of the people to information on matters of public concern
shall be recognized. Access to official records xxx pertaining to
official acts xxx shall beafforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.”
5
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
6.) Section 19 of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in
Aid of Legislation
“A witness can invoke his right against self-incrimination only when
a question tends to elicit an answer that will incriminate him is
propounded to him. However, he may offer to answer any question in
an executive session.

No person can refuse to testify or be placed under oath or affirmation

or answer questions before an incriminatory question is asked. His
invocation of such right does not by itself excuse him from his duty
to give testimony.

In such a case, the Committee, by a majority vote of the members

present there being a quorum, shall determine whether the right has
been properly invoked. If the Committee decides otherwise, it shall
resume its investigation and the question or questions previously
refused to be answered shall be repeated to the witness. If the latter
continues to refuse to answer the question, the Committee may punish
him for contempt for contumacious conduct.”