bengzon v Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Digest G.R. No. 89914 November 20, 1991 Padilla, J.

: Facts: 1. Petitioner was one of the defendants in a civil case filed by the government with the Sandiganbayan for the alleged anomalous sale of Kokoy Romoaldez of several government corporations to the group of Lopa, a brother-in-law of Pres. Aquino. 2. By virtue of a privilege speech made by Sen. Enrile urging the Senate to look into the transactions, an investigation was conducted by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. Petitioners and Ricardo Lopa were subpoenaed by the Committee to appear before it and testify on "what they know" regarding the "sale of thirty-six (36) corporations belonging to Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez." At the hearing, Lopa declined to testify on the ground that his testimony may "unduly prejudice" the defendants in civil case before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner filed for a TRO and/or injunctive relief claiming that the inquiry was beyond the jurisdiction of the Senate. He contended that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee acted in excess of its jurisdiction and legislative purpose. One of the defendants in the case before the Sandiganbayan, Sandejas, filed with the Court of motion for intervention. The Court granted it and required the respondent Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to comment on the petition in intervention. ISSUE: W/N the Blue Ribbon inquiry was in aid of legislation 1. NO. There appears to be no intended legislation involved. The purpose of the inquiry to be conducted is not related to a purpose within the jurisdiction of Congress, it was conducted to find out whether or not the relatives of President Aquino, particularly Mr. Lopa had violated RA 3019 in connection with the alleged sale of the 36 or 39 corporations belonging to Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez to the Lopa Group.

2.

The power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not absolute or unlimited. Its exercise is circumscribed by the Constitution. As provided therein, the investigation must be "in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure" and that "the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected." It follows then that the rights of persons under the Bill of Rights must be respected, including the right to due process and the right not to be compelled to testify against one's self. The civil case was already filed in the Sandiganbayan and for the Committee to probe and inquire into the same justiciable controversy would be an encroachment into the exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction that had already earlier set in. The issue sought to be investigated has already been pre-empted by the Sandiganbayan. To allow the inquiry to continue would not only pose the possibility of conflicting judgments between the legislative committee and a judicial tribunal. Finally, a congressional committees right to inquire is subject to all relevant limitations placed by the Constitution on governmental action including the relevant limitations of the Bill of Rights. One of these rights is the right of an individual to against self-incrimination. The right to remain silent is extended to respondents in administrative investigations but only if it partakes of the nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous to a criminal proceeding. Hence, the petitioners may not be compelled by respondent Committee to appear, testify and produce evidence before it only because the inquiry is not in aid of legislation and if pursued would be violative of the principle of separation of powers between the legislative and the judicial departments of the government as ordained by the Constitution.

3.

4.

3.

4.

Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee [G.R. No. 136760; July 29, 2003] Facts: Case concerns a petition for prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or injunctive relief from the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee from requiring herein petitioners to testify and produce evidence related to the latters inquiry on the sale of equity of Benjamin Kokoy Romualz to the Lopa Group. In the aforementioned case, Romualdez is accused of various acts of corruption and embezzlement of funds, which were supposedly hidden through various corporations. On Sept.

13 1988, Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile in his privilege speech called upon to look into the possible violation of the law in the case, particularly with regard to RA No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Petitioners contend that the order of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee for them to testify is not within its jurisdiction or legislative purpose, and is in clear and blatant disregard of their constitutional rights. Respondent Committee on the other hand claims that the court cannot inquire into the motives of the lawmakers in conducting legislative investigations under the doctrine of separation of powers. Issue: WON the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee can require the petitioners to attend said inquiries and testify concerning the said case. WON the SC has jurisdiction to review the motives of lawmakers in conducting legislative investigations Held: SC ruled that the Committee cannot require herein petitioners to participate and answer questions as the law states that officers can only be required to attend legislative inquiries if the purpose of such a session is to aid legislation, as stated in the Constitution. In this case, there is not suggestion of contemplated legislation; the purpose of the said session is merely to find out whether or not violations were committed against RA 3019. In relation to the issue regarding the separation of powers, the SC ruled that while it is true that each branch of government has their own distinct set of roles and responsibilities, it does not follow that the distinctions between the branches are intended for them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The purpose of the principle of checks and balances is to ensure that no branch of government abuses its power and overrides another government. And since it is the mandate of the judicial body to review actual controversies, it is within its realm to review the issues arising from this said conflict, even if it concerns another body of government. Petition for certiorari/prohibition is GRANTED. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is enjoined from compelling petitioners to testify before it and produce evidence at inquiry. Blue Ribbon Committee v. Judge Majuducon [GR No. 136760, 07/29/03] Ponente: Ynares-Santiago J. 2 consolidated petitions: [July 29, 2003]

FACTS Aug 28, 1998. Senator Blas Ople filed SRN 157. - directing National Defense and Security, to conduct inquiry, in aid of legislation, into the charges of then Defense Secretary Orlando Mercado that a group of active and retired military officers were organizing a coup detat to prevent the administration of then President Joseph Estrada from probing alleged fund irregularities in the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Aug 28, 1998. Senator Vicente Sotto III filed SRN 160. - directing appropriate Senate Committee to conduct inquiry, in aid of legislation, into alleged mismanagement of funds and investment portfolio of AFP-RSBS (Armed Forces Retirement and Separation Benefits System) Senate President referred SRNs to: a. Committee on Accountability of Public officers and Investigations [Blue Ribbon Committee] b. Committee on National Defense and Security In public hearing of Blue Ribbon Committee, appeared that AFP-RSBS purchased lot in GenSan {LOT X MR-1160} for Php10,000/sqm. In Deed of Sale, Registry of Deeds, purchase price: Php 3000/sqm. Blue Ribbon Committee services SUBPOENA to Atty. Flaviano, directing him to appear and testify. SUBPOENA: a writ commanding person to attend court under penalty for failure to do so. Atty. Flaviano refused. He filed a petition for prohibition and preliminary injunction with prayer for temporary restraining order with the RTC of General Santos City, Branch 23, {docketed as SP Civil Case No. 496} Oct 21, 1998. RTC issued Temporary Restraining Order direction Committee to stop from proceeding with inquiry and sending subpoenas to witnesses from Region XI, specifically GenSan. Nov 5, 1998. The Committee filed motion to dismiss the petition. - Grounds: a) lack of jurisdiction b) failure to state valid cause of action. Argued that Temporary Restraining Order= invalid, violated the rule against ex-parte issuance thereof, and it was unenforceable beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Nov 11, 1998. RTC denied petition and granted writ or preliminary injunction.

WRIT of PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: a court order that commands or prohibits an act that the court regards as essential to justice. Purpose prevent dissolution of plaintiffs rights, seek to prevent threatened wrong, further injury and irreparable harm and injustice. Phil. Star published a commentary regarding the action made by the Judge on this case.

ISSUES a. Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion by Judge - when he dismissed motion to dismiss the petition for prohibition, and issued a writ of preliminary injunction. b. b) Whether or not Judge erred in convicting Sen. Pimentel of indirect Contempt of Court HELD There is grave abuse of discretion as when the assailed order is bereft from legal justification. No legal basis for issuing the resolution. Sen. Pimentel is not guilty of indirect contempt of court. RATIO A. There was no legal basis for the issuance of the resolution by the Judge. a. Principles of Separation of Powers Congress --- legislation Executive --- execution Judicial --- settlement of legal controversies When Committee served subpoena, it acted in pursuant to its authority to conduct inquiries in aid for legislation. (Art VI, Sec 21, Consti) b. Respondent cited Bengzon v. Blue Ribbon Preliminary injunction may be issued in cases pending before administrative bodies such as the Ombudsman or Office of the Persecutor as long as the right to selfincrimination guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is in danger. - Bengzon does not apply in this case. - This case NO intended legislation involved; Offshoot of a speech by Senator Enrile. - Clear legislative purpose indicated in SRN 160. - Subject matter of inquiry was more within the province of the courts than the legislative.

Subpoena was served pursuant to its authority to conduct inquiries in aid for legislation. (Art VI, Sec 21, - Consti) - Issue has already been preempted before Committee came in. - Still pending with Office of Ombudsman. - Therefore, no court has acquired jurisdiction. B. Sen. Pimentel was not guilty of indirect contempt of court. The reasons for conviction were as follows: a. Causing the publication in Phil Star though it was sub judice. i. Sen. Pimentel contends that he had no participation in the publication. ii. pursuant to press freedom. relevant to matters of public interest. b. Making derogatory remarks. The derogatory statement was that he showed gross ignorance of rules of law and procedure. not improper conduct. Does not impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice. Necessary description to support a petition seeking the annulment of the order of the Judge. Spouses Bacar v. Judge De Guzman Jr. When law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if a judge does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. - Sen. Pimentel did not malign the trial court, rather expressed the violation of the basic principles of separation of powers. - Nazareno v. Barnes:purpose of court to punish for contempt: should not be personal. c. For making it appear than an admin case was filed against Judge for gross ignorance of law - Without legal basis. No complaint was instituted separate from petition for certiorari. 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 DUCES TECUM 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 a privilege speech = Arrogance of Wealth. - Based on a letter from Atty. Mark Bacobo denouncing SCB Phils 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 Standard Chartered 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 to those 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. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee has jurisdiction over the matter. RATIO

A. Bengzon Jr v Senate Blue Ribbon Committee does not apply in this case. - -The similarity of Bengzon Jr and of this case is only until the presence of cases already pending in various courts and admin bodies regarding the matter to be investigated. - -Bengzon Jr, was not in aid of legislation. The speech therein contained no contemplated legislation - On the other hand, this case is explicit on the nature of the inquiry, as stated in last 3 WHEREAS clauses in P.S. Resolution No 166. a. exisiting 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.