Standard Charted Bank Phil v Senate[G.R. No.

167173; December 27, 2007] Petition for Prohibition- With prayer for issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction- Dated and filed Mar 11, 2005. - Purpose: to enjoin respondents from 1. proceeding with its inquiry pursuant to Phil Senate (PS) No. 166 2. compelling petitioners (officers of SCB-Phils) to attend and justify before any hearing to be conducted by respondents particularly set on Mar 15, 2005. enforcing any Hold Departure Order (HDO) and/or putting petitioner on Watch List Also prays for:3. annulment of SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM and DUCESTECUM issued to P. SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM: A process to cause a witness to appear and give testimony, under conditions therein mentioned. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM: a command to produce documents FACTS 1. Feb 1 2005. Senator Juan Ponce Enrile (VC of R) delivered aprivilege speech = Arrogance of Wealth. Based on a letter from Atty. Mark Bacobo denouncing SCBPhils for selling unregistered securities in violation of the Securities Regulation Code (RA 8799) -According to letter, P is reported to have a sale of unregistered and high-risk securities by StandardChartered Bank which resulted in billions of losses to the investing public -Urging the Senate to immediately conduct an inquiry, aid in legislation, to prevent the occurrence of a similar fraudulent activity in the future. 2.Sen. Francis Pangilinan motioned the speech to be referred to R. PS Resolution was earler been introduced by Sen. Enrile. 3.R invited petitioners and other resource persons to attend hearing. On Feb 28, 2005 when the investigation was commenced, Senator Enrile moved that subpoena be issued tothose who did not attend and requested Dept of Justice to issue an HDO against them or include them in the Watch List. 4.P were later served SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM and DUCES TECUM to compel them to attend the next set hearing, thus they filed this petition.5. The issues raised against SCB Phils regarding the selling of unregistered foreign documents are already foreign securities. Primary: Did the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee have jurisdiction over the case at bar?

HELD Petition for Prohibition -DENIED, lack of merit.S enate Blue Ribbon Committee has jurisdiction over the matter. RATIO A.Bengzon Jr v Senate Blue Ribbon Committee does notapply in this case. -

A-The similarity of Bengzon Jr and of this case is only until thepresence of cases already pending in various courts andadmin bodies regarding the matter to be investigated.- -Bengzon Jr, was not in aid of legislation. The speech thereincontained no contemplated legislation- On the other hand, this case is explicit on the nature of theinquiry, as stated in last 3 WHEREAS clauses in P.S. Resolution No 166. a. existing laws including the Securities Regulation Code seem to be inadequate c. the regulatory intervention by the SEC and BSP likewise appear to be inadequate. d. there is a need for remedial legislation to address the issue. - Conclusion of Enriles privilege speech: conduct an inquiry,in aid of legislation. B. landmark case Amault v. Nazareno-the power of inquiry is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.-P cannot claim to have been singled out by R before there are other resource persons invited to help them in the case. - -purpose of the investigation: quest for remedies, to prevent recurrence - independent of the judiciary, it can assest its authority and punish non-compliance. C. Right of privacy ---not absolute right. (Sec 21, ART VI of Consti) Sabio v Gordon, Right to privacy is not absolute where there is an overriding compelling state interest.

Arroyo vs. De Venecia G.R. 127255, August 14, 1997 Facts: Rep. Joker Arroyo questioned the validity of the passage of R.A. alleged that there were rules of the House which were violated when the bill was approved and theseviolations are tantamount to violation of the Constitution. Issue: Did Congress committed grave abuse in approving the bill whichultimately becomes a law? Ruling: The rules that are allegedly violated are merely internal rules of procedure of the House rather than constitutional requirements forthe enactment of the law. Courts have no power to inquire intoallegations that in enacting a law, a house of Congress failed tocomply its own rules, in the absence of showing that there was aviolation of a constitutional provision or rights of private individuals. Besides, mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will notinvalidate the action when the requisite number of members haveagreed to a particular measure .