RECENT JURISPRUDENCE – POLITICAL LAW

In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of CAMILO L. SABIO v.
HON. SENATOR RICHARD J. GORDON, et al.
G.R. Nos. 174340, 174318 and 174177, 17 October 2006,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. (En Banc)

The Congress’ power of inquiry encompasses everything that concerns the administration of existing laws as
well as proposed or possibly needed legislation. It even extends “to government agencies created by Congress and officers
whose positions are within the power of Congress to regulate or even abolish.” So long as the constitutional rights of
witnesses will be respected by the investigating committees, it is the duty of the former to cooperate with the latter in their
efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action. The unremitting obligation of every citizen is to respond
to subpoenae, to respect the dignity of the Congress and its Committees, and to testify fully with respect to matters within
the realm of proper investigation.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago introduced Philippine Senate Resolution No. 455 (Senate
Res. No. 455) directing an inquiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the
Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippine Communications Satellite
Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), and PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation (PHC) due to the alleged
improprieties in their operations by their respective Board of Directors. The Senate invited
Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG) Chairman Camilo L. Sabio to be the
resource person in a public meeting that would deliberate on the issues presented in Senate Res. No.
455.

Chairman Sabio, however, declined the invitation, invoking Section 4, paragraph (b) of
Executive Order No. 1, which provides: “No member or staff of the Commission shall be required to testify or
produce evidence in any judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding concerning matters within its official
cognizance.” Senator Richard J. Gordon issued a subpoena ad testificandum, requiring Chairman Sabio and
the four PCGG Commissioners to appear in the public hearing scheduled on August 23, 2006 and
testify on what they know relative to the matters specified in Senate Res. No. 455. Again, Chairman
Sabio refused to appear. Another notice was sent to Chairman Sabio requiring him to appear and
testify on the same subject matter set on September 6, 2006, but Chairman Sabio still did not comply.
Eventually, Chairman Sabio and the PCGG Commissioners were arrested for contempt of the Senate
and brought to the Senate premises where they were detained.

Chairman Sabio filed the present petition for habeas corpus (G.R. No. 174340) and, together
with the four PCGG Commissioners and the PCGG’s nominees to PHC, petition for certiorari and
prohibition (G.R. No. 174318). They allege that the investigating committees concerned disregarded
Sec. 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 without any justifiable reason, the inquiries conducted by the said committees
are not in aid of legislation, the inquiries were conducted in the absence of duly published Senate
Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, and the said committees are not vested
with the power of contempt. In G.R. No. 174177, another petition for certiorari and prohibition, PHC
and its officers and directors contend that the said committees have no jurisdiction over the subject
matter stated in Senate Res. No. 455, the same inquiry is not in accordance with the Senate’s Rules of
Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, the subpoenae issued by Senator Gordon are
void for having been issued without authority, the conduct of legislative inquiry pursuant to Senate
Res. No. 455 constitutes undue encroachment by the Senate into justiciable controversies over which
several courts and tribunals have already acquired jurisdiction, and the subpoenae violated their rights
to privacy and against self-incrimination.

The respondents countered that the issues raised in the petitions involve political questions
over which the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction; that Sec. 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 has been repealed by
 RECENT JURISPRUDENCE – POLITICAL LAW

the Constitution; that the investigating committees are vested with contempt power; that the Senate’s
Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation have been duly published; that they
have not violated any civil right of the PHC officers and directors, such as their right to privacy and
right against self-incrimination; and that the inquiry does not constitute undue encroachment into
justiciable controversies.

ISSUES:
1.) Whether or not Sec. 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 has been repealed by the Constitution;
2.) Whether or not the investigating committees are vested with contempt power;
3.) Whether or not the rights to privacy and against self-incrimination of the PHC officers
and directors have been violated

HELD:
The petitions are DISMISSED.

Sec. 4(b) of E.O. 1 has been repealed by the Constitution because it is inconsistent with the
constitutional provisions on the Congress’ power of inquiry, the principle of public
accountability, the policy of full disclosure, and the right of access to public information.

Sec. 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 has been repealed by the Constitution because it is inconsistent with
the constitutional provisions on the Congress’ power of inquiry (Art. VI, Sec. 21), the principle of
public accountability (Art. XI, Sec. 1), the policy of full disclosure (Art. II, Sec. 28), and the right of
access to public information (Art. III, Sec. 7). The Constitution is the highest law of the land and all
provisions of laws against it are invalid no matter how noble their intentions may be.

The Congress’ power of inquiry encompasses everything that concerns the administration of
existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed legislation. It even extends “to government
agencies created by Congress and officers whose positions are within the power of Congress to
regulate or even abolish,” to which class the PCGG belongs. Sec. 4(b) exempts the PCGG members
and staff from the Congress’ power of inquiry. This can not be countenanced. Nowhere in the
Constitution is any provision granting such exemption.

Sec. 4(b) places the PCGG members and staff beyond the reach of courts, Congress and
other administrative bodies. Instead of encouraging public accountability, it only institutionalizes
irresponsibility and non-accountability.

The conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation is not only intended to benefit Congress but
also the citizenry. The Constitution seeks to promote transparency in policy-making and in the
operations of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to enable them to
exercise effectively their constitutional rights. Armed with the right information, citizens can
participate in public discussions leading to the formulation of government policies and their effective
implementation. An informed citizenry is essential to the existence and proper functioning of any
democracy. Sec. 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. Again, this can not be countenanced.

The investigating committees are vested with contempt power

The 1987 Constitution, in Section 21 of its Article VI, recognizes the power of investigation,
not just of Congress, but also of “any of its committees.” Significantly, this constitutes a direct
 RECENT JURISPRUDENCE – POLITICAL LAW

conferral of investigatory power upon the committees and it means that the mechanisms which the
Houses can take in order to effectively perform the investigative function are also available to the
committees, like the power of contempt. Otherwise, Sec. 21 of Art. VI would be meaningless.

The subject inquiry does not violate rights to privacy and against self-incrimination

In evaluating a claim for violation of the right to privacy, a court must determine whether a
person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, whether that expectation has
been violated by unreasonable government intrusion. The subject inquiry focuses on the acts
committed by the PHC officers and directors in the discharge of their duties as such. The latter have
no reasonable expectation of privacy over matters involving their offices in a corporation where the
government has interest, which matters are of public concern and over which the people have the
right to information. Indeed, the right to privacy is not absolute where there is an overriding
compelling state 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 PHC officers and directors, as well as from
Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners to aid it in crafting the necessary legislation to prevent
corruption and formulate remedial measures and policy determination regarding PCGG’s efficacy.

Anent the right against self-incrimination, this may be invoked by the PHC officers and
directors only when the incriminating question is being asked, since they have no way of knowing in
advance the nature or effect of the questions to be asked of them. That this right may possibly be
violated or abused is no ground for denying the investigating committees their power of inquiry.

So long as the constitutional rights of witnesses, like Chairman Sabio and his
Commissioners, will be respected by the investigating committees, it is the duty of the former to
cooperate with the latter in their efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action.
The unremitting obligation of every citizen is to respond to subpoenae, to respect the dignity of the
Congress and its Committees, and to testify fully with respect to matters within the realm of proper
investigation.