PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATIONS

COVERAGE OF SESSION TWO (January 23, 2017)

A. OVERVIEW

01. Historical background

02. Principal functions of the Congress of the Philippines
a. Law making
b. Oversight
c. Representation
03. Exercise of Legislative Power

B. NATURE AND SCOPE OF INQUIRIES IN AID OF

LEGISLATION

01. Constitutional Basis

a. Article VI, Section 21 Constitution
b. Article VI, Section 22 Constitution
c. Article VI, Section 16(3) Constitution

02. Legislative enactments

03. Rules of Procedure
04. Rules of Inquiry
05. Nature of Inquiry
06. Scope: Any and all matters vested by the Constitution in
Congress
COVERAGE OF SESSION FOUR

A. Problem Area 1: Initiation of Inquiry

B. Problem Area 2: Jurisdictional Challenge

C. Problem Area 3: Judicial Intervention

D. Cases to read:

1. Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, G.R. No.

89914, 20 November 1991
FACTS: PCGG filed with the Sandiganbayan against Benjamin Romualdez, et al for
engaging in devices, schemes and stratagems to unjustly enrich themselves at the
expense of plaintiff and the Filipino people.

The Senate Minority Floor Leader Enrile delivered a speech before the Senate on the
alleged take-over personal privilege before the Senate on the alleged "takeover of
SOLOIL Inc," the FlagShip of the First Manila Management of Companies or FMMC by
Ricardo Lopa and called upon the Senate to look into the possible violation of the
law in the case with regard to RA 3019 (Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).

The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee (Committee on Accountability of Public Officers

[SBRC]) started its investigation on the matter. Petitioners and Ricardo Lopa were
subpoenaed by the SBRC to appear before it and testify on what they know
regarding the sale of 36 corporations belonging to Benjamin Romualdez. Lopa and
Bengzon refused to testify, invoking their rights to due process, and that their
testimony may unduly prejudice the defendants and petitioners in case before the
Sandiganbayan.

SBRC rejected the petitioner's plea to be excused from testifying and the SBRC
continued its investigation of the matter.

The petitioners filed for prohibition with a prayer for TRO and/or injunctive relief,
claiming that the SBRC in requiring their attendance and testimony, acted in excess
of its jurisdiction and legislative purpose. The Supreme Court intervened upon a
motion for reconsideration filed by one of the defendants of the civil case.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the case.

2. Whether or not the SBRC's inquiry has valid legislative purpose.

3. whether or not the civil case of Sandiganbayan is beyond the power of the SBRC
to inquire into.

4. Whether or not the inquiry violates the petitioners' right to due process.

RULING:

1. Yes. In Angara vs Electoral Commission, the Constitution provided for an

elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of
the various departments of the government. The Court has provided that the
allocation of constitutional boundaries is a task which the judiciary must perform
under the Constitution. Moreover, as held in a recent case, "(t)he political question
doctrine neither interposes an obstacle to judicial determination of the rival claims.
The jurisdiction to delimit constitutional boundaries has been given to this Court. It
cannot abdicate that obligation mandated by the 1987 Constitution, although said
provision by no means does away with the applicability of the principle in
appropriate cases."

The Court is thus of the considered view that it has jurisdiction over the present
controversy for the purpose of determining the scope and extent of the power of the
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to conduct inquiries into private affairs in purported
aid of legislation.

2. No. The power to conduct formal inquiries or investigations is specifically

provided for in Sec. 1 of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of
Legislation. Such inquiries may refer to the implementation or re-examination of any
law or in connection with any proposed legislation or the formulation of future
legislation. They may also extend to any and all matters vested by the Constitution
in Congress and/or in the Senate alone.

It appears, therefore, that the contemplated inquiry by respondent Committee is not

really "in aid of legislation" because it is not related to a purpose within the
jurisdiction of Congress, since the aim of the investigation is to find out whether or
not the relatives of the President or Mr. Ricardo Lopa had violated Section 5 RA No.
3019, the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act", a matter that appears more within
the province of the courts rather than of the legislature.

3. No. It cannot be said that the contemplated inquiry on the subject of the privilege
speech of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, i.e., the alleged sale of the 36 (or 39)
corporations belonging to Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez to the Lopa Group is to be
conducted pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 212 because, firstly, Senator Enrile did
not indict the PCGG, and, secondly, neither Mr. Ricardo Lopa nor the herein
petitioners are connected with the government but are private citizens.
4. Yes. The Constitution expressly provides that "the rights of persons appearing in
or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.

It should be emphasized that the constitutional restriction does not call for the
banning or prohibition of investigations where a violation of a basis rights is
claimed. It only requires that in the course of the proceedings, the right of persons
should be respected.

What the majority opinion mandates is a blanket prohibition against a witness

testifying at all, simply because he is already facing charges before the
Sandiganbayan. To my mind, the Constitution allows him to interpose objections
whenever an incriminating question is posed or when he is compelled to reveal his
court defenses, but not to refuse to take the witness stand completely.

2. Standard Chartered Bank vs. Senate Committee on

Banks, G.R. No. 167173, 27 December 2007
FACTS: SCB Phil Branch had criminal and civil charges against them before the
courts in Metro Manila for selling unregistered foreign securities in violation of
Securities Regulation Code (RA 8799). Enrile, in his privileged speech, urged the
Senate to immediately conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation, to prevent the
occurrences of a similar fraudulent in the future. The respondent Committee then
set an initial hearing to investigate, in aid of legislation thereto. SCB stressed that
there were cases allegedly involving the same issues subject of legislative inquiry. In
the petition that reached the SC, petitioners argue that the Senate has no
jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry because its subject matter is the very same
subject matter of pending cases.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent Committee, by aid of legislation, would

encroach upon the judicial powers vested solely in the courts who took cognizance
of the foregoing cases.

RULING: No. The unmistakable objective of the investigation, as set forth in the
resolution, as initiated in the privileged speech of Senate President Enrile, was
simply "to denounce the illegal practices committed by a foreign bank in selling
unregistered foreign securities xxx", and at the conclusion of the said speech "to
immediately conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation, so as to prevent the
occurrence of a similar fraudulent in the future."

The mere filing of a criminal or administrative complaint before a court or a quasi-

judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislation. The exercise of
sovereign legislative authority, of which the power of legislative inquiry is an
essential component, cannot be made subordinate to a criminal or an
administrative investigation.
The intent of legislative inquiries is to arrive at a policy determination, which may or
may not be enacted into law. Except only when it exercises the power to punish for
contempt, the committees of the Senate or the House of Representatives cannot
penalize violators even there is overwhelmingly evidence of criminal culpability.
Other than proposing or initiating amendatory or remedial legislation, respondent
Committee can only recommend measures to address or remedy whatever
irregularities may be unearthed during the investigation, although it may include in
its Report a recommendation for criminal indictment of persons who may appear
liable. At best, the recommendation, along with the evidence, contained in such
Report would only be persuasive, but it is still up to the prosecutorial agencies and
the courts to determine the liabilities of the offender.

3. Arnault vs.Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820, 18 July 1950

FACTS: This case arose from the legislative inquiry into the acquisition by the
Philippine Government of the Buenavista and Tambobong estates sometime in
1949. Among the witnesses called to be examined by the special committee created
by a Senate resolution was Jean L. Arnault, a lawyer who delivered a partial of the
purchase price to a representative of the vendor. During the Senate investigation,
Arnault refused to reveal the identity of said representative, at the same time
invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination. The Senate adopted a
resolution committing Arnault to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms and
imprisoned until he shall have purged the contempt by revealing to the Senate . . .
the name of the person to whom he gave the P440,000, as well as answer other
pertinent questions in connection therewith. Arnault petitioned for a writ of Habeas
Corpus

ISSUE: Can the senate impose penalty against those who refuse to answer its
questions in a congressional hearing in aid of legislation.

HELD: It is the inherent right of the Senate to impose penalty in carrying out their
duty to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation. But it must be herein established that a
witness who refuses to answer a query by the Committee may be detained during
the term of the members imposing said penalty but the detention should not be too
long as to violate the witness right to due process of law.

4. Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, 20 April 2006

Facts: This case is regarding the railway project of the North Luzon Railways
Corporation with the China National Machinery and Equipment Group as well as the
Wiretapping activity of the ISAFP, and the Fertilizer scam.

The Senate Committees sent invitations to various officials of the Executive

Department and AFP officials for them to appear before Senate on Sept. 29, 2005.
Before said date arrived, Executive Sec. Ermita sent a letter to Senate President
Drilon, requesting for a postponement of the hearing on Sept. 29 in order to afford
said officials ample time and opportunity to study and prepare for the various issues
so that they may better enlighten the Senate Committee on its investigation.
Senate refused the request.

On Sept. 28, 2005, the President issued EO 464, effective immediately, which,
among others, mandated that all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of
the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before
either House of Congress. Pursuant to this Order, Executive Sec. Ermita
communicated to the Senate that the executive and AFP officials would not be able
to attend the meeting since the President has not yet given her consent. Despite
the lack of consent, Col. Balutan and Brig. Gen. Gudani, among all the AFP officials
invited, attended the investigation. Both faced court marshal for such attendance.

Issue: Whether E.O. 464 contravenes the power of inquiry vested in Congress.

Ruling: To determine the constitutionality of E.O. 464, the Supreme Court discussed
the two different functions of the Legislature: The power to conduct inquiries in aid
of legislation and the power to conduct inquiry during question hour.

Question Hour:

The power to conduct inquiry during question hours is recognized in Article 6,

Section 22 of the 1987 Constitution. The objective of conducting a question hour is
to obtain information in pursuit of Congress oversight function. When Congress
merely seeks to be informed on how department heads are implementing the
statutes which it had issued, the department heads appearance is merely
requested.

The Supreme Court construed Section 1 of E.O. 464 as those in relation to the
appearance of department heads during question hour as it explicitly referred to
Section 22, Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution.

In aid of Legislation:

The Legislatures power to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation is expressly

recognized in Article 6, section21 of the 1987 Constitution. The power of inquiry in
aid of legislation is inherent in the power to legislate. A legislative body cannot
legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the
conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change. And where the
legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information, recourse must be
had to others who do possess it.
But even where the inquiry is in aid of legislation, there are still recognized
exemptions to the power of inquiry, which exemptions fall under the rubric of
executive privilege. This is the power of the government to withhold information
from the public, the courts, and the Congress. This is recognized only to certain
types of information of a sensitive character. When Congress exercise its power of
inquiry, the only way for department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a
valid claim of privilege. They are not exempt by the mere fact that they are
department heads. Only one official may be exempted from this power -- the
President.

Section 2 & 3 of E.O. 464 requires that all the public officials enumerated in Section
2(b) should secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either
house of Congress. The enumeration is broad. In view thereof, whenever an official
invokes E.O.464 to justify the failure to be present, such invocation must be
construed as a declaration to Congress that the President, or a head of office
authorized by the President, has determined that the requested information is
privileged.

The letter sent by the Executive Secretary to Senator Drilon does not explicitly
invoke executive privilege or that the matter on which these officials are being
requested to be resource persons falls under the recognized grounds of the privilege
to justify their absence. Nor does it expressly state that in view of the lack of
consent from the President under E.O. 464, they cannot attend the hearing. The
letter assumes that the invited official possesses information that is covered by the
executive privilege. Certainly, Congress has the right to know why the executive
considers the requested information privileged. It does not suffice to merely declare
that the President, or an authorized head of office, has determined that it is so.

The claim of privilege under Section 3 of E.O. 464 in relation to Section 2(b) is thus
invalid per se. It is not asserted. It is merely implied. Instead of providing precise
and certain reasons for the claim, it merely invokes E.O. 464, coupled with an
announcement that the President has not given her consent.

When an official is being summoned by Congress on a matter which, in his own

judgment, might be covered by executive privilege, he must be afforded reasonable
time to inform the President or the Executive Secretary of the possible need for
invoking the privilege. This is necessary to provide the President or the Executive
Secretary with fair opportunity to consider whether the matter indeed calls for a
claim of executive privilege. If, after the lapse of that reasonable time, neither the
President nor the Executive Secretary invokes the privilege, Congress is no longer
bound to respect the failure of the official to appear before Congress and may then
opt to avail of the necessary legal means to compel his appearance.

Wherefore, the petitions are partly granted. Sections 2(b) and 3 of E.O. 464 are
declared void. Section 1(a) are however valid.
 5. Garcillano vs. The House of Representatives
Committees, G.R. No. 170338, 28 December 2008

6. Sabio vs. Gordon, G.G. No. 174340, 17 October 2006

7. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee vs. Majaducon, G.R. No.

136760, 29 July 2003

8. Spouses de la Paz vs. Senate Committee on Foreign

Relations, G.R. No. 184849,

13 February 2009