Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Manila
Spouses PNP Director ELISEO D.
DELA PAZ (Ret.) and MARIA FE
C. DELA PAZ
Petitioner,
-versus-
SENATE
COMMITTEE
ON
FOREIGN RELATIONS and the
SENATE SERGEANT AT ARMS
JOSE BALAJADIA, JR.
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------x
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This case concerns the much publicized incident in Moscow, Russia, involving
petitioner Gen. dela Paz, a former Comptroller of the PNP who, on his way home from a
conference, was temporarily held by Russian customs officials for failing to declare an
amount equivalent to 105,000 euros.
customs law which limited the amount of cash that foreigners were allowed to bring
during their travel to 10,000 US dollars or its equivalent.
Upon his return to the Philippines, petitioners, along with the other members of
his group, were summoned to appear and testify at a hearing called by Mme. Senator
Miriam Defensor Santiago, in her capacity as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee (the Committee).
The day before the appointed hearing, however, petitioners learned about Rule X,
Section 13(12) of the Senate Rules which clearly spelled out the jurisdiction of its
Committee on Foreign Relations, to wit:
(12) Committee on Foreign Relations. - Fifteen (15) members. All matters
relating to the relations of the Philippines with other nations generally;
diplomatic and consular services; the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations; the United Nations Organization and its agencies; multi-lateral
organizations; all international agreements, obligations and contracts; and
overseas Filipinos. (underscoring ours)
Now realizing that the jurisdiction of the Committee was merely limited to
matters that involve state to state relations, and not ordinary infractions of local laws
committed by our citizens in foreign countries, petitioners sent counsel to the hearing to
file a Challenge to Jurisdiction with Motion to Quash Subpoenae (the Challenge)
dated 23 October 2008 and excused themselves from attending the hearing. Petitioners,
however, pledged to attend any other Senate inquiry as long as it is conducted by the
appropriate committee.
As newspaper and television accounts would have it, and also the Transcript of
Stenographic Notes would show1 Santiago blew her top and summarily dismissed
petitioners Challenge. Thus, in grave abuse of discretion, Sen. Santiago insisted on her
committees jurisdiction to hear the case and proceeded to hurl baseless accusations and
insults not only against petitioner General dela Paz but also against all those present at the
hearing, notably DILG Secretary Ronaldo Puno and PNP Chief Jesus Versoza.
Page 4 of the October 23, 2008 hearing at 10:05 a.m Transcript of Stenographic Notes
Worse, in grave and patent abuse of her discretion and authority, devoid of any
jurisdiction, and without even waiting for the concurrence of the other members of the
committee, Sen. Santiago ordered the Senates Sergeant at Arms, the Hon. Jose Balajadia,
Jr., to arrest the petitioners and to bring them before her, now, if possible.
With all due respect, petitioners respectfully submit that the respondent
Committee totally DISREGARDED their rights to due process when, on SEVERAL
INSTANCES:
488 SCRA 1
suffices to cast on the official act taken by whichever branch of the government the
impress of nullity, the fundamental right to due process being a cornerstone of our legal
system. The right to due process is a cardinal and primary right which must be respected
in all proceedings.3
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining order, filed pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
which seeks to:
A. ANNUL AND SET ASIDE the Orders given in open session by the Hon. Sen. Miriam
Defensor Santiago, in her capacity as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
in grave abuse and in excess of her jurisdiction, during the hearing last 23 October 2008:
B. PROHIBIT (a) the respondent Senate Foreign Relations Committee from proceeding
with its hearings and conducting its inquiries on this case, and (b) the respondent
Sergeant of Arms, the Hon. Jose Balajadia, Jr., from enforcing any warrant of arrest that
may have been ordered issued by the Committee to compel the attendance of petitioners
at any of its hearings.
Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers & Investigations (Blue Ribbon),
G.R. No. 180643, September 4, 2008.
In support of his petition, and as proof of the questioned orders herein, petitioners
respectfully enclose as Annex A certified true copies of the transcripts of stenographic
notes taken during the proceedings held last 23 October 2008.
At the time of the filing of this Petition, the issuance of the warrant of arrest
against petitioners appears impending, with pronouncements made by the Committee to
the media that all that is being awaited is the signature of the Senate President, Manuel B.
Villar. Thus, petitioners herein likewise seeks the issuance of a preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order against the respondents directing that the proceedings against
them in the subject case cease while the instant petition is under consideration.
1.02 On 23 October 2008, on the date of the hearing, petitioner Gen. dela Paz filed a
Challenge to Jurisdiction with Motion to Quash Subpoenae. A copy of the Challenge is
enclosed and made an integral part hereof as Annex D
1.03 Sen. Santiago, in her capacity as Chair of the Committee, in grave abuse of
discretion, and in excess of her jurisdiction, summarily denied petitioners Challenge to
Jurisdiction with Motion to Quash Subpoenae and thereupon ordered the Arrest of the
Petitioners. A copy of the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the proceedings,
attesting to the issuance of the questioned orders, is attached and made an integral part hereof
as Annex A.
1.04 As the issue here involves a denial of petitioners substantive and procedural
rights to due process, the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration was no longer deemed
necessary.4 Besides, right after the denial of petitioners Challenge, Sen. Santiago suggested
to counsel that he can appeal her ruling directly to the Supreme Court.5
1.05. As the filing of this Petition, the Warrant of Arrest is yet to be issued but
appears to be impending, awaiting the signature of the Senate President, Manuel B. Villar
THE PARTIES
Petitioners Spouses PNP Director (Ret.) ELISEO DELA PAZ and MARIA FE
DELA PAZ, are both of legal age, Filipinos, and with residence address at c/o Camp
Crame, Quezon City. Petitioner Gen. dela Paz is a recently retired Director of the
Philippine National Police who has served his country without taint and blemish for all
the years that he had been protecting and enforcing the laws of the land. Petitioners may
be served with summons and other processes of the Honorable Court through undersigned
counsel, the MALAYA, SANCHEZ, AOVER, AOVER and SIMPAO LAW OFFICE,
with address at Suite 422 Chateau Verde Condo. Valle Verde I, Brgy. Ugong, 1604 Pasig
City.
4
5
Respondent Jose Balajadia is the Sergeant At Arms of the Senate who is tasked to
serve the Arrest Warrant upon petitioners.
Respondents may be served with summons and other processes of the Honorable
Court at the Committee on Foreign Relations, Senate of the Philippines, GSIS Building,
Financial Center, Roxas Blvd., Pasay City.
1.01 On 4 September 2008, a PNP delegation composed of eight (8) senior PNP
officers were given authority by Secretary of DILG, Ronaldo V. Puno to travel on official
mission to attend the 77th General Assembly Session of International Criminal Police
Organization (ICPO)-INTERPOL in Saint Petersburg, Russia from 6-11 October 2008.
1.02 Petitioner Gen. dela Paz brought along with him as Contingency fund, the
amount of Six Million Nine Hundred Thirty Thousand Pesos (P6,930,000.00) which was
subsequently changed to One Hundred Five Thousand Euros (105,000).
The
contingency fund was cash advanced from PNP funds by Police Director Dela Paz in his
capacity as Special Disbursing Officer (SDO) of the PNP delegation while traveling to
Saint Petersburg, Russia and vice-versa.
1.03 The PNP delegation arrived in St. Petersburg via Hongkong and Moscow on
October 6, 2008.
delegation were not inspected at the port of entry in Moscow. Thereafter, the delegation
attended the General Assembly Session of ICPO-Interpol until 8 October 2008.
1.04 On 9 October 2008, while the group was already at the departure area of the
Moscow International Airport, petitioners were held for questioning by Russian
authorities regarding the foreign currencies they were carrying which reportedly exceeded
the currency limit of the said country.
1.04 Upon petitioner Gen. dela Pazs submission to the Russian authorities of
pertinent documents showing that the money he was carrying was the contingency fund of
the PNP delegation, petitioners were ordered released. Upon agreement with the Russian
customs officials, the contingency fund will be wired back to the Philippines and will be
returned to the PNPs coffers.
1.06 The said contingency fund will be liquidated by petitioner Gen. dela Paz in
accordance with existing accounting and auditing rules and regulation within one month
from his arrival in the country.
1.07
insinuations and derogatory conclusions, not only against petitioner Gen. dela Paz but
against the other convention delegates and the leadership as well of the PNP and of the
Department of the Interior and Local Government, had already come out in public.
1.08 Initial media reports bared that petitioner Gen. dela Paz will be invited to a
Senate hearing to shed light on the issue.
1.09 Worse, it pained petitioner Gen. dela Paz to find out that even his wife was
not spared as she herself has been issued a subpoena to testify in the Senate hearing
1.10 On 22 October 2008, petitioner Gen. dela Paz voluntary appeared before the
Office of the Ombudsman and assured them of his full cooperation in any investigation
that the said office will be undertaking.
1.11 On 23 October 2008, the date of the Senate hearing, petitioner Gen. dela Paz
filed before the respondent Committee a Challenge to Jurisdiction with Motion to Quash
Subpoenae.
discretion and in ignoring the SCOPE OF THE JURISDICTION of her Committee and
the INTERNAL RULES governing inquiries in aid of legislation, DENIED and
DISMISSED the Challenge.
1.12 Moreover, the respondent Senator failed to observe the standards of due
process when she ordered respondent Balajadia to arrest petitioners and instantly bring
them before the Committee if possible.
I.
THE RESPONDENT COMMITTEE COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT
INSISTED IN PROCEEDING WITH THE HEARING
DESPITE THE FACT THAT ITS OWN RULES
SHOW THAT IT IS DEVOID OF ANY
JURISDICTION TO HEAR MATTERS THAT DO
NOT INVOLVE STATE TO STATE RELATIONS.
II.
ASSUMING
THAT
THE
RESPONDENT
COMMITTEE HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE
MATTER, IT STILL COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN THEY CAUSED
THE ISSUANCE OF THE ARREST WARRANT IN
CONTRAVENTION OF INTERNAL RULES OF THE
SENATE WHICH REQUIRE THE SIGNATURES OF
THE MAJORITY OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE.
III.
THE RESPONDENTS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN THEY
CONDUCTED THE PROCEEDINGS ACCORDING
TO
SENATE
RULES
OF
PROCEDURE
GOVERNING
INQUIRIES
IN
AID
OF
LEGISLATION WHICH THEY HAVE FAILED TO
PUBLISH, AS REQUIRED BY SENATE VS.
ERMITA6.
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS
2.01 Under Rule X, Section 13(12), the specific powers and duties of the
Committee on Foreign Relations are clearly spelled out, to wit:
(12) Committee on Foreign Relations. - Fifteen (15) members. All matters
relating to the relations of the Philippines with other nations generally;
diplomatic and consular services; the Association of Southeast Asian
6
488 SCRA 1
10
It is clear, therefore, that only matters that concern relations of the Philippines
with other nations, or state to state relations, fall within the jurisdiction of the
respondent Committee.
relations of the Philippines with other countries do not, and should not, fall within the
jurisdiction of the Committee.
This particular case, therefore, which merely involves an infraction of a local law
committed by a Filipino citizen abroad, does not fall within the ambit of the phrase state
to state relations. To hold otherwise would lead to the absurd interpretation that all
infractions committed by Filipinos abroad would all impact on the foreign relations that
the Philippines has with that country which would always compel the respondent
Committee to look into.
To illustrate our point, it would appear from all indications that the incident in
Moscow will not disrupt or even alter the present state of foreign relations that the
Philippines presently has with Russia. Petitioners doubt that it was ever the intention of
the respondent Committee to review its foreign relations with Russia, whatever the results
of its investigation would be. The state of our foreign relations with Russia was never an
issue or a concern in this inquiry.
11
this challenge and motion. Thus, the subject subpoenae must be quashed for having been
issued without authority.
2.03 Petitioners also hasten to add that the procedures on the need to indicate in
the subpoena the proposed legislation that prompted the inquiry was likewise not
followed. These are rooted on fairness and due process, as required by this Honorable
Court in the Neri case, infra.
3.02 The leading case on the issue of Quorum and the legality of its acts was
clearly ruled upon by the Court in the case of Neri v. Senate Committee on
Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, Senate Committee on Trade
and Commerce, and Senate Committee on National Defense and Security GR No.
12
180643 March 25, 2008. The Court ruled that (C)learly, the needed vote is a majority
of all the members of the Committee. In this case, the challenged Order of Arrest was
ordered to be issued ONLY by the Committee Chair herself. Thus, there is a cloud of
doubt as to the validity of the Order given in open session last 23 October 2008 ordering
the arrest of petitioners. In the Neri case, the relevant portion on the issue on quorum
reads:
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. CAYETANO, A). For clarification.
x x x The Chair will call either a caucus or will ask the
Committee on Rules if there is a problem. Meaning, if we do not
have the sufficient numbers. But if we have a sufficient number,
we will just hold a caucus to be able to implement that right away
becauseAgain, our Rules provide that any one held in contempt
and ordered arrested, need the concurrence of a majority of all
members of the said committee and we have three committees
conducting this.
So thank you very much to the members
SEN. PIMENTEL. Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. CAYETANO,A). May I recognize the
Minority Leader and give him the floor, Senator Pimentel.
SEN. PIMENTEL. Mr. Chairman, there is no problem, I think,
with consulting the other committees. But I am of the opinion that
the Blue Ribbon Committee is the lead committee, and therefore, it
should have preference in enforcing its own decisions. Meaning to
say, it is not something that is subject to consultation with other
committees. I am not sure that is the right interpretation. I think
that once we decide here, we enforce what we decide, because
otherwise, before we know it, our determination is watered down
by delay and, you know, the so-called consultation that
inevitably will have to take place if we follow the premise that has
been explained.
So my suggestion, Mr. Chairman, is the Blue Ribbon Committee
should not forget its the lead committee here, and therefore, the
will of the lead committee prevails over all the other, you, know
reservations that other committees might have who are only
secondary or even tertiary committees, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. CAYETANO, A.) Thank you very
much to the Minority Leader. And I agree with the wisdom of his
statements. I was merely mentioning that under Section 6 of the
Rules of the Committee and under Section 6, The Committee by a
vote of a majority of all its members may punish for contempt any
witness before it who disobeys any order of the Committee.
So the Blue Ribbon Committee is more than willing to take that
responsibility. But we only have six members here today, I am the
seventh as chair and so we have not met that number. So I am
13
14
4.02 In the same case of Neri, the Supreme Court ruled, in quoting the OSG, that
the phrase duly published rules of procedure requires the Senate of every Congress to
publish its rules of procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation because every
Senate is distinct from the one before it or after it. Since Senatorial elections are held
every three (3) years for one-half of the Senates membership, the composition of the
Senate also changes by the end of each term. Each Senate may thus enact a different set
of rules as it may deem, fit. Not having published its Rules of Procedure, the subject
hearings in aid of legislation conducted by the 14th Senate, are therefore, procedurally
infirm.
4.03 Justice Isagani Cruz, in his book Philippine Political Law, offers a verifiable
observation:
The reason is that in the past this power was much abused by
some legislators who used it for illegitimate ends or to browbeat or
intimidate witnesses, usually for grandstanding purposes only. There were
also times when the subject of the inquiry was purely private in nature and
therefore outside the scope of the powers of the Congress.
7
488 SCRA 1
15
4.04 Hence, it is indispensable that the Senate Rules of Procedure during the
current 14th Congress must be duly published. The problem is, the rules have not been
published in the Official Gazette or newspaper of general circulation as required by
Tanada v. Tuvera9,. Publication in either of these forms is mandatory to comply with
the due process requirement. Due process requires that fair notice be given to those
concerned before the rules that put their liberty at risk take effect.10 The rationale of this
requirement was enunciated in Tanada as follows:
Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun
instead of skulking in the shadows with their dark, deep secrets.
Mysterious pronouncements and rumored rules cannot be recognized as
binding unless their existence and contents are confirmed by a valid
publication intended to make full disclosure and give proper notice to
the people. The furtive law is like a scabbarded saber that cannot feint,
parry or cut unless the naked blade is drawn.
4.05 The current Senate cannot in good conscience neglect to publish its Rules of
Procedure. Nor could its Committee ignore the Rules, especially those on quorum. In the
absence of a published rule of procedure on a matter which is the subject of legislative
inquiry, any action which affects substantial rights of persons would be anathema, and
risks unconstitutionality. Even if there is such a rule or statute duly published, if it lacks
comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ in its application, the rule or statute would be repugnant to the
Constitution in two respects:
especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid; and, it leaves the
law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary
8
9
10
16
flexing of the Government muscle.11 How much more in this case where there is a patent
lack of publication and proper notice of the applicable rules. Or where the rules are
misread and misapplied resulting to lack of quorum.12
PRAYER
(1) ANNUL AND SET ASIDE, for having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion and in excess of jurisdiction, the Orders given in open session last
23 October 2008 by Mme. Sen. Miriam Santiago, in her capacity as Chair of
the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations denying petitioners Challenge to
Jurisdiction with Motion to Quash Subpoenae and ordering the respondent
Senate Sergeant Arms, Jose Balajadia, Jr. to arrest the petitioners and to
compel them to submit to the jurisdiction of the Committee; and to
(2) PROHIBIT the respondents from assuming jurisdiction over the case, from
conducting hearings or inquiries supposedly in aid of legislation, and from
enforcing any of the orders, decisions or reports and that it may issue in the
course of its proceedings.
In the meantime that this petition is being heard by this Honorable Court, it is
likewise prayed that a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction be issued
temporarily enjoining the respondents from proceeding with the conduct of their
legislative inquiry as regards the Moscow incident against the petitioners in any manner
and compelling them to submit to the jurisdiction of the Committee and to restrain the
issuance or the enforcement of the arrest warrant if already issued.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Pasig City for Manila, October 27, 2008
11
12
17
REYNALDO R. SIMPAO
PTR No. 9771352;01/07/08 Quezon City
IBP No. 726181;01/03/08 Quezon City
Roll No. 40980
ALEXIS M. ABASTILLAS-SUAREZ
PTR No. 4334353;01/04/08 Pasig City
IBP No. 733019;01/04/08 Neg. Occ.
Roll No. 49650
MCLE Compliance #II - 0002763
VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION
AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING
We, Spouses PNP Director ELISEO DELA PAZ (Ret.) and MARIA FE
DELA PAZ, of legal age, Filipinos and with postal address at
______________________, after having been duly sworn to, hereby depose and say, that:
We are the petitioners in the above entitled case;
18
We caused the preparation of the above Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition;
and have read and understood the same and that the allegations therein are true and
correct of our own personal knowledge and/or based on the authentic records of this case.
We certify that we have not forum-shopped; specifically, we have not theretofore
commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency;
if there is such other action or proceeding, we must state the status of the same; and if we
would thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending
before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any
other tribunal or agency, I undertake to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other
tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.
Pasig City, October 27, 2008
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our hands this 27th day of
October 2008 in Pasig City.
MARBERT J. QUIA-ONG
Doc. No 397
Page No. 80
Book No. I
Series of 2008
19
20