Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-3820 July 18, 1950
JEAN L. ARNAULT, petitioner,
vs.
LEON NAZARENO, Se!e"#$-"$-"%&, P'(l())(#e Se#"$e, "#* EUSTA+U,O -ALAGTAS, .(e/$o o0 P(&o#&,
respondents.
J.C. Orendain, Augusto Revilla, and Eduardo Arboleda for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General Felix autista Angelo, !oren"o Su#ulong, !oren"o $a%ada, and &icente J. Francisco for
respondents.
OZAETA, J.1
This is an original petition for habeas corpus to relieve the petitioner from his confinement in the Ne Bilibid Prison to
hich he has been committed b! virtue of a resolution adopted b! the "enate on Ma! #$, #%$&, hich reads as follos'
(hereas, )ean *. Arnault refused to reveal the name of the person to hom he gave the P++&,&&&, as ell as
anser other pertinent ,uestions related to the said amount- No, therefore, be it.
Resolved, that for his refusal to reveal the name of the person to hom he gave the P++&,&&& )ean *. Arnault be
committed to the custod! of the "ergeant.at.Arms and imprisoned in the Ne Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa, Ri/al,
until discharged b! further order of the "enate or b! the special committee created b! "enate Resolution No. 0,
such discharge to be ordered hen he shall have purged the contempt b! revealing to the "enate or to the said
special committee the name of the person to hom he gave the P++&,&&&, as ell as anser other pertinent
,uestions in connection thereith.
The facts that gave rise to the adoption of said resolution, insofar as pertinent here, ma! be briefl! stated as follos'
1n the latter part of 2ctober, #%+%, the Philippine 3overnment, through the Rural Progress Administration, bought to
estates 4non as Buenavista and Tambobong for the sums of P+,$&&,&&& and P$&&,&&&, respectivel!. 2f the first sum,
P#,&&&,&&& as paid to Ernest 5. Burt, a nonresident American, thru his attorne!.in.fact in the Philippines, the Associated
Estates, 1nc., represented b! )ean *. Arnault, for alleged interest of the said Burt in the Buenavista Estate. The second
sum of P$&&,&&& as all paid to the same Ernest 5. Burt through his other attorne!.in.fact, the North Manila 6evelopment
Co., 1nc., also represented b! )ean *. Arnault, for the alleged interest of the said Burt in the Tambobong Estate.
The original oner of the Buenavista Estate as the "an )uan de 6ios 5ospital. The Philippine 3overnment held a 7$.
!ear lease contract on said estate, ith an option to purchase it for P8,&&&,&&& ithin the same period of 7$ !ears
counted from )anuar! #, #%8%. The occupation Republic of the Philippines purported to e9ercise that option b! tendering
to the oner the sum of P8,&&&,&&& and, upon its re:ection, b! depositing it in court on )une 7#, #%++, together ith the
accrued rentals amounting to P877+,&&&. "ince #%8% the 3overnment has remained in possession of the estate.
2n )une 7%, #%+;, the "an )uan de 6ios 5ospital sold the Buenavista Estate for P$,&&&,&&& to Ernest 5. Burt, ho made
a don pa!ment of P#&,&&& onl! and agreed to pa! P$&&&,&&& ithin one !ear and the remainder in annual installments
of P$&&,&&& each, ith the stipulation that failure on his part to ma4e an! of said pa!ments ould cause the forfeiture of
his don pa!ment of P#&,&&& and ould entitle the 5ospital to rescind to sale to him. Aside from the don pa!ment of
P#&,&&&, Burt has made no other pa!ment on account of the purchase price of said estate.
The original oner of the Tambobong Estate as the Philippine Trust Compan!. 2n Ma! #+, #%+;, the Philippine Trust
Compan! sold estate for the sum of P#,7&&,&&& to Ernest 5. Burt, ho paid P#&,&&& don and promise to pa! P%&,&&&
ithin nine months and the balance of P#,#&&,&&& in ten successive installments of P##&,&&& each. The nine.month
period ithin hich to pa! the first installment of P%&,&&& e9pired on <ebruar! #+, #%+=, ithout Burt>s having paid the
said or an! other amount then or afterards. 2n "eptember +, #%+=, the Philippine Trust Compan! sold, conve!ed, and
delivered the Tambobong Estate to the Rural Progress Administration b! an absolute deed of sale in consideration of the
sum of P=$&,&&&. 2n <ebruar! $, #%+0, the Rural Progress Administration made, under article #$&+ of the Civil Code, a
notarial demand upon Burt for the resolution and cancellation of his contract of purchase ith the Philippine Trust
Compan! due to his failure to pa! the installment of P%&,&&& ithin the period of nine months. "ubse,uentl! the Court of
<irst 1nstance of Ri/al ordered the cancellation of Burt>s certificate of title and the issuance of a ne one in the name of
the Rural Progress Administration, from hich order he appealed to the "upreme Court.
#
1t as in the face of the antecedents s4etched in the last three preceding paragraphs that the Philippine 3overnment,
through the "ecretar! of )ustice as Chairman of the Board of 6irectors of the Rural Progress Administration and as
Chairman of the Board of 6irectors of the Philippine National Ban4, from hich the mone! as borroed, accomplished
the purchase of the to estates in the latter part of 2ctober, #%+%, as stated at the outset.
2n <ebruar! 7=, #%$&, the "enate adopted its Resolution No. 0, hich reads as follos'
RE"2*?T12N CREAT1N3 A "PEC1A* C2MM1TTEE T2 1N@E"T13ATE T5E B?ENA@1"TA AN6 T5E
TAMB2B2N3 E"TATE" 6EA*.
(5EREA", it is reported that the Philippine government, through the Rural Progress Administration, has bought
the Buenavista and the Tambobong Estates for the aggregate sum of five million pesos-
(5EREA", it is reported that under the decision of the "upreme Court dated 2ctober 8#, #%+%, the Buenavista
Estate could have been bought for three million pesos b! virtue of a contract entered into beteen the "an )uan
de 6ios 5ospital and Philippine 3overnment in #%8%-
(5EREA", it is even alleged that the Philippine 3overnment did not have to purchase the Buenavista Estate
because the occupation government had made tender of pa!ment in the amount of three million pesos, )apanese
currenc!, hich fact is believed sufficient to vest title of 2nership in the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to
decisions of the "upreme Court sustaining the validit! of pa!ments made in )apanese militar! notes during the
occupation-
(5EREA", it is reported that the Philippine 3overnment did not have to pa! a single centavo for the Tambobong
Estate as it as alread! practicall! oned b! virtue of a deed of sale from the Philippine Trust Compan! dated
"eptember 8, #%+, for seven hundred and fift! thousand pesos, and b! virtue of the recission of the contract
through hich Ernest 5. Burt had an interest in the estate- No, therefore, be it.
RE"2*@E6, That a "pecial Committee, be, as it hereb! is, created, composed of five members to be appointed
b! the President of the "enate to investigate the Buenavista and Tambobong Estate deals. 1t shall be the dut! of
the said Committee to determine hether the said purchase as honest, valid, and proper and hether the price
involved in the deal as fair and :ust, the parties responsible therefor, and an! other facts the Committee ma!
deem proper in the premises. "aid Committee shall have the poer to conduct public hearings- issue subpoena
or subpoena duces tecu# to compel the attendance of itnesses or the production of documents before it- and
ma! re,uire an! official or emplo!ee of an! bureau, office, branch, subdivision, agenc!, or instrumentalit! of the
3overnment to assist or otherise cooperate ith the "pecial Committee in the performance of its functions and
duties. "aid Committee shall submit its report of findings and recommendations ithin to ee4s from the
adoption of this Resolution.
The special committee created b! the above resolution called and e9amined various itnesses, among the most
important of hom as the herein petitioner, )ean *. Arnault. An intriguing ,uestion hich the committee sought to resolve
as that involved in the apparent unnecessariness and irregularit! of the 3overnment>s pa!ing to Burt the total sum of
P#,$&&,&&& for his alleged interest of onl! P7&,&&& in the to estates, hich he seemed to have forfeited an!a! long
before 2ctober, #%+%. The committee sought to determine ho ere responsible for and ho benefited from the
transaction at the e9pense of the 3overnment.
Arnault testified that to chec4s pa!able to Burt aggregating P#,$&&,&&& ere delivered to him on the afternoon of
2ctober 7%, #%+%- that on the same date he opened a ne account in the name of Ernest 5. Burt ith the Philippine
National Ban4 in hich he deposited the to chec4s aggregating P#,$&&,&&&- and that on the same occasion he dra on
said account to chec4s- one for P$&&,&&&, hich he transferred to the account of the Associated Agencies, 1nc., ith the
Philippine National Ban4, and another for P++&,&&& pa!able to cash, hich he himself cashed. 1t as the desire of the
committee to determine the ultimate recipient of this sum of P++&,&&& that gave rise to the present case.
At first the petitioner claimed before the Committee'
Mr. ARNA?*T Areading from a noteB. Mr. Chairman, for ,uestions involving the disposition of funds, 1 ta4e the
position that the transactions ere legal, that no las ere being violated, and that all re,uisites had been
complied ith. 5ere also 1 acted in a purel! functional capacit! of representative. 1 beg to be e9cused from ma4ing
anser hich might later be used against me. 1 have been assured that it is m! constitutional right to refuse to
incriminate m!self, and 1 am certain that the 5onorable Members of this Committee, ho, 1 understand, are
la!ers, ill see the :ustness of m! position.
At as subse,uent session of the committee AMarch #;B "enator 6e @era, a member of the committee, interrogated him as
follos'
"enator 6E @ERA. No these transactions, according to !our on t!peritten statement, ere legalC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 believe so.
"enator 6E @ERA. And the disposition of that fund involved, according to !our on statement, did not violate an!
laC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 believe so.
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
"enator 6E @ERA. "o that if the funds ere disposed of in such a manner that no las ere violated, ho is it
that hen !ou ere as4ed b! the Committee to tell hat steps !ou too4 to have this mone! delivered to Burt, !ou
refused to anser the ,uestions, sa!ing that it ould incriminate !ouC
Mr. ARNA?*T. Because it violates the rights of a citi/en to privac! in his dealings ith other people.
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
"enator 6E @ERA. Are !ou afraid to state ho the mone! as disposed of because !ou ould be incriminated, or
!ou ould be incriminating somebod!C
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 am not afraid- 1 simpl! stand on the privilege to dispose of the mone! that has been paid to me as
a result of a legal transaction ithout having to account for an! use of it.
But hen in the same session the chairman of the committee, "enator "umulong, interrogated the petitioner, the latter
testified as follos'
The C5A1RMAN. The other chec4 of P++&,&&& hich !ou also made on 2ctober 7%, #%+%, is pa!able to cash-
and upon cashing this P++&,&&& on 2ctober 7%, #%+%, hat did !ou do ith that amountC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 turned it over to a certain person.
The C5A1RMAN. The hole amount of P++&,&&&C
Mr. ARNA?*T. Des.
The C5A1RMAN. (ho as that certain person to hom !ou delivered these P++&,&&& hich !ou cashed on
2ctober 7%, #%+%C
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 don>t remember the name- he as a representative of Burt.
The C5A1RMAN. That representative of Burt to hom !ou delivered the P++&,&&& as a <ilipinoC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 don>t 4no.
The C5A1RMAN. Dou do not remember the name of that representative of Burt to hom !ou delivered this big
amount of P++&,&&&C
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 am not sure- 1 do not remember the name.
The C5A1RMAN. That certain person ho represented Burt to hom !ou delivered the big amount on 2ctober 7%,
#%+%, gave !ou a receipt for the amountC
Mr. ARNA?*T. No.
The C5A1RMAN. Neither did !ou as4 a receiptC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 didn>t as4.
The C5A1RMAN. And h! did !ou give that certain person, representative of Burt, this big amount of P++&,&&&
hich forms part of the P#.E million paid to BurtC
Mr. ARNA?*T. Because 1 have instructions to that effect.
The C5A1RMAN. (ho gave !ou the instructionC
Mr. ARNA?*T. Burt.
The C5A1RMAN. (here is the instruction- as that in ritingC
Mr. ARNA?*T. No.
The C5A1RMAN. B! cableC
Mr. ARNA?*T. No.
The C5A1RMAN. 1n hat form did !ou receive that instructionC
Mr. ARNA?*T. @erbal instruction.
The C5A1RMAN. (hen did !ou receive this verbal instruction from Burt to deliver these P++&,&&& to a certain
person hose name !ou do not li4e to revealC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 have instruction to compl! ith the re,uest of the person.
The C5A1RMAN. No, !ou said that instruction given to !ou b! Burt as verbalC
Mr. ARNA?*T. Des.
The C5A1RMAN. (hen as that instruction given to !ou b! BurtC
Mr. ARNA?*T. *ong time ago.
The C5A1RMAN. 1n hat !ear did Burt give !ou that verbal instruction- hen Burt as still here in the PhilippinesC
Mr. ARNA?*T. Des.
The C5A1RMAN. But at that time Burt alread! 4ne that he ould receive the mone!C
Mr. ARNA?*T. No.
The C5A1RMAN. 1n hat !ear as that hen Burt hile he as here in the Philippines gave !ou the verbal
instructionC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1n #%+;.
The C5A1RMAN. And hat has that certain person done for Burt to merit receiving these P++&,&&&C
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 absolutel! do not 4no.
The C5A1RMAN. Dou do not 4noC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 do not 4no.
The C5A1RMAN. Burt did not tell !ou hen he gave !ou the verbal instruction h! that certain person should
receive these P++&,&&&C
Mr. ARNA?*T. 5e did not tell me.
The C5A1RMAN. And Burt also authori/ed !ou to give this big amount to that certain person ithout receiptC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 5e told me that a certain person ould represent him and here could 1 meet him.
The C5A1RMAN. 6id Burt 4no alread! that certain person as earl! as #%+;C
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 presume much before that.
The C5A1RMAN. 6id that certain person have an! intervention in the prosecution of the to cases involving the
Buenavista and Tambobong estatesC
Mr. ARNA?*T. Not that 1 4no of.
The C5A1RMAN. 1s that certain person related to an! high government officialC
Mr. ARNA?*T. No, 1 do not 4no.
The C5A1RMAN. (h! can !ou not tell us the name of that certain personC
Mr. ARNA?*T. Because 1 am not sure of his name- 1 cannot remember the name.
The C5A1RMAN. (hen gave that certain person that P++&,&&& on 2ctober 7%, #%+%, !ou 4ne alread! that
personC
Mr. ARNA?*T. Des, 1 have seen him several times.
The C5A1RMAN. And the name of that certain person is a <ilipino nameC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 ould sa! "panish name.
The C5A1RMAN. And ho about his Christian name- is it also a "panish nameC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 am not sure- 1 thin4 the initial is ).
The C5A1RMAN. 6id he have a middle nameC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 never 4ne it.
The C5A1RMAN. And ho about his famil! name hich according to !our recollection is "panish- can !ou
remember the first letter ith hich that famil! name beginsC
Mr. ARNA?*T. ", 6 or <.
The C5A1RMAN. And hat as the last letter of the famil! nameC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 do not 4no.
The C5A1RMAN. 5ave !ou seen that person again after !ou have delivered this P++&,&&&C
Mr. ARNA?*T. Des.
The C5A1RMAN. "everal timesC
Mr. ARNA?*T. To or three times.
The C5A1RMAN. 5ere in ManilaC
Mr. ARNA?*T. Des.
The C5A1RMAN. And in spite of the fact that !ou met that person to or three times, !ou never ere able to find
out hat as his nameC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1f 1 4ne, 1 ould FhaveG ta4en it don. Mr. Peralta 4nos m! name- of course, e have not done
business. *ots of people in Manila 4no me, but the! don>t 4no m! name, and 1 don>t 4no them. The! saH 1 am
IchifladoI because 1 don>t 4no their names.
The C5A1RMAN. That certain person is a male or femaleC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 5e is a male.
The C5A1RMAN. Dou are sure that he is a male at leastC
Mr. ARNA?*T. *et us sa! 80 or +& !ears, more or less.
The C5A1RMAN. Can !ou give us, more or less, a description of that certain personC (hat is his comple9ion'
light, dar4 or light bronC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 5e is li4e the gentleman there Apointing to "enator CabiliB, but smaller. 5e al4s ver! straight, ith
militar! bearing.
The C5A1RMAN. 6o !ou 4no the residence of that certain person to hom !ou gave the P++&,&&&C
Mr. ARNA?*T. No.
The C5A1RMAN. 6uring these fre,uent times that !ou met that certain person, !ou never came to 4no his
residenceC
Mr. ARNA?*T. No, because he as coming to the office.
The C5A1RMAN. 5o tall is that certain personC
Mr. ARNA?*T. Beteen $.7 and $.;.
2n Ma! #$, #%$&, the petitioner as haled before the bar of the "enate, hich approved and read to him the folloing
resolution'
e it resolved b' the Senate of the (hilippines in Session asse#bled)
That )ean *. Arnault, no at the bar of the "enate, be arraigned for contempt consisting of contumacious acts
committed b! him during the investigation conducted b! the "pecial Committee created b! "enate Resolution No.
0 to probe the Tambobong and Buenavista estates deal of 2ctober 7#, #%+%, and that the President of the "enate
propounded to him the folloing interrogatories'
#. (hat e9cuse have !ou for persistentl! refusing to reveal the name of the person to hom !ou gave the
P++&,&&& on 2ctober 7%, #%+%, a person hose name it is impossible for !ou not to remember not onl! because
of the big amount of mone! !ou gave to him ithout receipt, but also b! !our on statements !ou 4ne him as
earl! as #%+; hen 3eneral Ernest 5. Burt as still in the Philippines, !ou made to other deliveries of mone! to
him ithout receipt, and the last time !ou sa him as in 6ecember #%+%C
Thereupon petitioner>s attorne!, Mr. 2rendain, submitted for him a ritten anser alleging that the ,uestions ere
incriminator! in nature and begging leave to be alloed to stand on his constitutional right not to be compelled to be a
itness against himself. Not satisfied ith that ritten anser "enator "umulong, over the ob:ection of counsel for the
petitioner, propounded to the latter the folloing ,uestion'
"en. "?M?*2N3. 6uring the investigation, hen the Committee as4ed !ou for the name of that person to hom
!ou gave the P++&,&&&, !ou said that !ou can FcouldG not remember his name. That as the reason then for
refusing to reveal the name of the person. No, in the anser that !ou have :ust cited, !ou are refusing to reveal
the name of that person to hom !ou gave the P++&,&&& on the ground that !our anser ill be self.incriminating.
No, do 1 understand from !ou that !ou are abandoning !our former claim that !ou cannot remember the name of
that person, and that !our reason no for !our refusal to reveal the name of that person is that !our anser might
be self.incriminatingC 1n other ords, the ,uestion is this' (hat is !our real reason for refusing to reveal the name
of that person to hom !ou gave the P++&,&&&' that !ou do not remember his name or that !our anser ould be
self.incriminatingC
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Mr. 2REN6A1N. Mr. President, e are begging for the rules of procedure that the accused should not be re,uired
to testif! unless he so desires.
The PRE"16ENT. 1t is the dut! of the respondent to anser the ,uestion. The ,uestion is ver! clear. 1t does not
incriminate him.
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 stand b! ever! statement that 1 have made before the "enate Committee on the first, second, and
third hearings to hich 1 as made in m! letter to this "enate of Ma! 7, #%$&, in hich 1 gave all the reasons that
ere in m! poers to give, as re,uested. 1 cannot change an!thing in those statements that 1 made because the!
represent the best that 1 can do , to the best of m! abilit!.
The PRE"16ENT. Dou are not ansering the ,uestion. The anser has nothing to do ith the ,uestion.
"en. "?M?*2N3. 1 ould li4e to remind !ou , Mr. Arnault, that the reason that !ou gave during the investigation
for not revealing the name of the person to hom !ou gave the P++&,&&& is not the same reason that !ou are no
alleging because during the investigation !ou told us' I1 do not remember his name.I But, no, !ou are no
sa!ing' IM! anser might incriminate me.I (hat is !our real positionC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 have :ust stated that 1 stand b! m! statements that 1 made at the first, second, and third hearings.
1 said that 1 anted to be e9cused from ansering the ,uestion. 1 beg to be e9cused from ma4ing an! anser that
might be incriminating in nature. 5oever, in this anser, if the detail of not remembering the name of the person
has not been included, it is an oversight.
"en. "?M?*2N3. Mr. Arnault, ill !ou 4indl! anser a simple ,uestion' 6o !ou remember or not the name of the
person to hom !ou gave the P++&,&&&C
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 do not remember .
"en. "?M?*2N3. No, if !ou do not remember the name of that person, ho can !ou sa! that !our anser
might be incriminatingC 1f !ou do not remember his name, !ou cannot anser the ,uestion- so ho could !our
anser be self.incriminatingC (hat do !ou sa! to thatC
Mr. ARNA?*T. This is too complicated for me to e9plain. Please, 1 do not see ho to anser those ,uestions. That
is h! 1 as4ed for a la!er, so he can help me. 1 have no means of 4noing hat the situation is about. 1 have
been in :ail #8 da!s ithout communication ith the outside. 5o could 1 anser the ,uestionC 1 have no
4noledge of legal procedure or rule, of hich 1 am completel! ignorant.
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
"en. "?M?*2N3. Mr. President, 1 as4 that the ,uestion be ansered.
The PRE"16ENT. The itness is ordered to anser the ,uestion. 1t is ver! clear. 1t does not incriminate the
itness.
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 do not remember. 1 stand on m! constitutional rights. 1 beg to be e9cused from ma4ing further
anser, please.
"en. "?M?*2N3. 1n that mimeographed letter that !ou sent addressed to the President of the "enate, dated
Ma! 7, #%$&, !ou stated there that !ou cannot reveal the name of the person to hom !ou gave the P++&,&&&
because if he is a public official !ou might render !ourself liable for prosecution for briber!, and that if he is a
private individual !ou might render !ourself liable for prosecution for slander. (h! did !ou ma4e those statements
hen !ou cannot even tell us hether that person to hom !ou gave the P++&,&&& is a public official or a private
individual C (e are giving !ou this chance to convince the "enate that all these allegations of !ours that !our
ansers might incriminate !ou are given b! !ou honestl! or !ou are :ust tr!ing to ma4e a prete9t for not revealing
the information desired b! the "enate.
The PRE"16ENT. Dou are ordered to anser the ,uestion.
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 do not even understand the ,uestion. AThe ,uestion is restated and e9plained.B
Mr. ARNA?*T. That letter of Ma! 7, as prepared b! a la!er for me and signed it. That is all 1 can sa! ho 1
stand about this letter. 1 have no 4noledge m!self enough to rite such a letter, so 1 had to secure the help of a
la!er to help me in m! period of distress.
1n that same session of the "enate before hich the petitioner as called to sho cause h! he should not be ad:udged
guilt! of contempt of the "enate, "enator "umulong propounded to the petitioner ,uestions tending to elicit information
from him as to the identit! of the person to hom he delivered the P++&,&&&- but the petitioner refused to reveal it b!
sa!ing that he did not remember. The President of the "enate then propounded to him various ,uestions concerning his
past activities dating as far bac4 as hen itness as seven !ears of age and ending as recentl! as the post liberation
period, all of hich ,uestions the itness ansered satisfactoril!. 1n vie thereof, the President of the "enate also made
an attempt to illicit the desired information from the itness, as follos'
The PRE"16ENT. No 1 am convinced that !ou have a good memor!. Anser' 6id !ou deliver the P++&,&&& as a
gift, or of an! considerationC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 have said that 1 had instructions to deliver it to that person, that is all.
The PRE"16ENT. (as it the first time !ou sa that personC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 sa him various times, 1 have alread! said.
The PRE"16ENT. 1n spite of that, !ou do not have the least remembrance of the name of that personC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 cannot remember.
The PRE"16ENT. 5o is it that !ou do not remember events that happened a short time ago and, on the other
hand, !ou remember events that occurred during !our childhoodC
Mr. ARNA?*T. 1 cannot e9plain.
The "enate then deliberated and adopted the resolution of Ma! #$ hereinabove ,uoted hereb! the petitioner as
committed to the custod! of the "ergeant.at.Arms and imprisoned until Ihe shall have purged the contempt b! revealing
to the "enate or to the aforesaid "pecial Committee the name of the person to hom he gave the P++&,&&&, as ell as
anser other pertinent ,uestions in connection thereith.I
The "enate also adopted on the same date another resolution ANo. #;B , to it'
That the "pecial Committee created b! "enate Resolution No. 0 be empoered and directed to continue its
investigation of the Tambobong and Buenavista Estates deal of 2ctober 7#, #%+%, more particularl! to continue
the e9amination of )ean *. Arnault regarding the name of the person to hom he gave the P++&,&&& and other
matters related thereith.
The first session of the "econd Congress as ad:ourned at midnight on Ma! #0, #%$&.
The case as argued tice before us. (e have given its earnest and prolonged consideration because it is the first of its
4ind to arise since the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines as adopted. <or the first time this Court is called
upon to define the poer of either 5ouse of Congress to punish a person not a member for contempt- and e are full!
conscious that our pronouncements here ill set an important precedent for the future guidance of all concerned.
Before discussing the specific issues raised b! the parties, e deem it necessar! to la! don the general principles of la
hich form the bac4ground of those issues.
Patterned after the American s!stem, our Constitution vests the poers of the 3overnment in three independent but
coordinate 6epartments J *egislative, E9ecutive, and )udicial. The legislative poer is vested in the Congress, hich
consists of the "enate and the 5ouse of Representatives. A"ection #, Article @1.B Each house ma! determine the rules of
its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderl! behavior, and, ith the concurrence of to.thirds of all its Members,
e9pel a Member. A"ection #&, Article @1.B The :udicial poer is vested in the "upreme Court and in such inferior courts as
ma! be established b! la. A"ection #, Article @111.B *i4e the Constitution of the ?nited "tates, ours does not contain an
e9press provision empoering either of the to 5ouses of Congress to punish nonmembers for contempt. 1t ma! also be
noted that hereas in the ?nited "tates the legislative poer is shared b! and beteen the Congress of the ?nited
"tates, on the one hand, and the respective legislatures of the different "tates, on the other J the poers not delegated
to the ?nited "tates b! the Constitution nor prohibited b! it to "tates being reserved to the "tates, respectivel!, or to the
people J in the Philippines, the legislative poer is vested in the Congress of the Philippines alone. 1t ma! therefore be
said that the Congress of the Philippines has a ider range of legislative field than the Congress of the ?nited "tates or
an! "tate *egislature. 2ur form of 3overnment being patterned after the American s!stem J the framers of our
Constitution having dran largel! from American institutions and practices J e can, in this case, properl! dra also from
American precedents in interpreting analogous provisions of our Constitution, as e have done in other cases in the past.
Although there is no provision in the Constitution e9pressl! investing either 5ouse of Congress ith poer to ma4e
investigations and e9act testimon! to the end that it ma! e9ercise its legislative functions as to be implied. 1n other ords,
the poer of in,uir! J ith process to enforce it J is an essential and appropriate au9iliar! to the legislative function. A
legislative bod! cannot legislate isel! or effectivel! in the absence of information respecting the conditions hich the
legislation is intended to effect or change- and here the legislative bod! does not itself possess the re,uisite information
J hich is not infre,uentl! true J recourse must be had to others ho do possess it. E9perience has shon that mere
re,uests for such information are often unavailing, and also that information hich is volunteered is not ala!s accurate
or complete- so some means of compulsion is essential to obtain hat is needed. AMc3rain vs. 6aughert!, 7=8 ?."., #8$-
=# *. ed., $0&- $& A.* R., #.B The fact that the Constitution e9pressl! gives to Congress the poer to punish its Members
for disorderl! behavior, does not b! necessar! implication e9clude the poer to punish for contempt an! other person.
AAnderson vs. 6unn, ;, (heaton, 7&+- $ *. ed., 7+7.B But no person can be punished for contumac! as a itness before
either 5ouse, unless his testimon! is re,uired in a matter into hich that 5ouse has :urisdiction to in,uire. AKilbourn vs.
Thompson, 7; *. ed., 8==.B.
"ince, as e have noted, the Congress of the Philippines has a ider range of legislative field than either the Congress of
the ?nited "tates or a "tate *egislature, e thin4 it is correct to sa! that the field of in,uir! into hich it ma! enter is also
ider. 1t ould be difficult to define an! limits b! hich the sub:ect matter of its in,uir! can be bounded. 1t is not necessar!
to do so in this case. "uffice it to sa! that it must be coe9tensive ith the range of the legislative poer.
1n the present case the :urisdiction of the "enate, thru the "pecial Committee created b! it, to investigate the Buenavista
and Tambobong Estates deal is not challenged b! the petitioner- and e entertain no doubt as to the "enate>s authorit! to
do so and as to the validit! of Resolution No. 0 hereinabove ,uoted. The transaction involved a ,uestionable and
allegedl! unnecessar! and irregular e9penditure of no less than P$,&&&,&&& of public funds, of hich Congress is the
constitutional guardian. 1t also involved government agencies created b! Congress to regulate or even abolish. As a result
of the !et uncompleted investigation, the investigating committee has recommended and the "enate approved three bills
A#B prohibiting the "ecretar! of )ustice or an! other department head from discharging functions and e9ercising poers
other than those attached to his on office, ithout Gprevious congressional authori/ation- A7B prohibiting brothers and
near relatives of an! President of the Philippines from intervening directl! or indirectl! and in hatever capacit! in
transactions in hich the 3overnment is a part!, more particularl! here the decision lies in the hands of e9ecutive or
administrative officers ho are appointees of the President- and A8B providing that purchases of the Rural Progress
Administration of big landed estates at a price of P#&&,&&& or more, shall not become effective ithout previous
congressional confirmation.
7
(e shall no consider and pass upon each of the ,uestions raised b! the petitioner in support of his contention that his
commitment is unlaful.
First 5e contends that the "enate has no poer to punish him for contempt for refusing to reveal the name of the person
to hom he gave the P++&,&&&, because such information is immaterial to, and ill not serve, an! intended or purported
legislation and his refusal to anser the ,uestion has not embarrassed, obstructed, or impeded the legislative process. 1t
is argued that since the investigating committee has alread! rendered its report and has made all its recommendations as
to hat legislative measures should be ta4en pursuant to its findings, there is no necessit! to force the petitioner to give
the information desired other than that mentioned in its report, to it' I1n :ustice to )udge Luirino and to "ecretar!
Nepomuceno, this atmosphere of suspicion that no pervades the public mind must be dissipated, and it can onl! be
done if appropriate steps are ta4en b! the "enate to compel Arnault to stop pretending that he cannot remember the
name of the person to hom he gave the P++&,&&& and anser the ,uestions hich ill definitel! establish the identit! of
that person . . .I "enator "umulong, Chairman of the Committee, ho appeared and argued the case for the respondents,
denied that that as the onl! purpose of the "enate in see4ing the information from the itness. 5e said that the
investigation had not been completed, because, due to the contumac! of the itness, his committee had not !et
determined the parties responsible for the anomalous transaction as re,uired b! Resolution No. 0- that, b! Resolution No.
#;, his committee as empoered and directed to continue its investigation, more particularl! to continue its e9amination
of the itness regarding the name of the person to hom he gave the P++&,&&& and other matters related thereith- that
the bills recommended b! his committee had not been approved b! the 5ouse and might not be approved pending the
completion of the investigation- and that those bills ere not necessaril! all the measures that Congress might deem it
necessar! to pass after the investigation is finished.
2nce an in,uir! is admitted or established to be ithin the :urisdiction of a legislative bod! to ma4e, e thin4 the
investigating committee has the poer to re,uire a itness to anser an! ,uestion pertinent to that in,uir!, sub:ect of
course to his constitutional right against self.incrimination. The in,uir!, to be ithin the :urisdiction of the legislative bod! to
ma4e, must be material or necessar! to the e9ercise of a poer in it vested b! the Constitution, such as to legislate, or to
e9pel a Member- and ever! ,uestion hich the investigator is empoered to coerce a itness to anser must be material
or pertinent to the sub:ect of the in,uir! or investigation. "o a itness ma! not be coerced to anser a ,uestion that
obviousl! has no relation to the sub:ect of the in,uir!. But from this it does not follo that ever! ,uestion that ma! be
propounded to a itness must be material to an! proposed or possible legislation. 1n other ords, the materialit! of the
,uestion must be determined b! its direct relation to an! proposed or possible legislation. The reason is, that the necessit!
or lac4 of necessit! for legislative action and the form and character of the action itself are determined b! the sum total of
the information to be gathered as a result of the investigation, and not b! a fraction of such information elicited from a
single ,uestion.
1n this connection, it is suggested b! counsel for the respondents that the poer of the Court is limited to determining
hether the legislative bod! has :urisdiction to institute the in,uir! or investigation- that once that :urisdiction is conceded,
this Court cannot control the e9ercise of that :urisdiction- and it is insinuated, that the ruling of the "enate on the
materialit! of the ,uestion propounded to the itness is not sub:ect to revie b! this Court under the principle of the
separation of poers. (e have to ,ualif! this proposition. As as said b! the Court of Appeals of Ne Dor4' I(e are
bound to presume that the action of the legislative bod! as ith a legitimate ob:ect if it is capable of being so construed,
and e have no right to assume that the contrar! as intended.I APeople ex rel. Mc6onald vs. Keeler, %% N.D., +;8- $7
Am. Rep., +%- 7 N.E., ;#$, ,uoted ith approval b! the "upreme Court of the ?nited "tates in the said case of Mc3rain
vs. 6aughert!, it is necessar! deduction from the decision in Re Chapman, +# *. ed., ##$+, that here the ,uestions are
not pertinent to the #atter under in*uir' a itness rightfull! ma! refuse to anser. "o e are of the opinion that here the
alleged immaterialit! of the information sought b! the legislative bod! from a itness is relied upon to contest its
:urisdiction, the court is in dut! bound to pass upon the contention. The fact that the legislative bod! has :urisdiction or the
poer to ma4e the in,uir! ould not preclude :udicial intervention to correct a clear abuse of discretion in the e9ercise of
that poer.
Appl!ing the criterion laid don in the last to preceding paragraphs to the resolution of the issue under consideration, e
find that the ,uestion for the refusal to anser hich the petitioner as held in contempt b! the "enate is pertinent to the
matter under in,uir!. 1n fact, this is not and cannot be disputed. "enate Resolution No. 0, the validit! of hich is not
challenged b! the petitioner, re,uires the "pecial Committee, among other things, to determine the parties responsible for
the Buenavista and Tambobong estates deal, and it is obvious that the name of the person to hom the itness gave the
P++&,&&& involved in said deal is pertinent to that determination J it is in fact the ver! thing sought to be determined. The
contention is not that the ,uestion is impertinent to the sub:ect of the in,uir! but that it has no relation or materialit! to an!
proposed legislation. (e have alread! indicated that it is not necessar! for the legislative bod! to sho that ever!
,uestion propounded to a itness is material to an! proposed or possible legislation- hat is re,uired is that is that it be
pertinent to the matter under in,uir!.
1t is said that the "enate has alread! approved the three bills recommended b! the Committee as a result of the
uncompleted investigation and that there is no need for it to 4no the name of the person to hom the itness gave the
P++&,&&&. But aside from the fact that those bills have not !et been approved b! the loer house and b! the President
and that the! ma! be ithdran or modified if after the in,uir! is completed the! should be found unnecessar! or
inade,uate, there is nothing to prevent the Congress from approving other measures it ma! deem necessar! after
completing the investigation. (e are not called upon, nor is it ithin our province, to determine or imagine hat those
measures ma! be. And our inabilit! to do so is no reason for overruling the ,uestion propounded b! the "enate to the
itness.
The case of Re Chapman , #;; ?."., ;;#- +# *. ed., ##$+, is in point here. The in,uir! there in ,uestion as conducted
under a resolution of the "enate and related to charges, published in the press, that senators ere !ielding to corrupt
influences in considering a tariff bill then before the "enate and ere speculating in stoc4s the value of hich ould be
affected b! pending amendments to the bill. Chapman, a member of a firm of stoc4 bro4ers dealing in the stoc4 of the
American "ugar Refining Compan!, appeared before the committee in response to a subpoena and as4ed, among others,
the folloing ,uestions'
5ad the firm, during the month of March, #0%+, bought or sold an! stoc4 or securities, 4non as sugar stoc4s, for
or in the interest, directl! or indirectl!, of an! ?nited "enate senatorC
(as the said firm at that time carr!ing an! sugar stoc4 for the benefit of, or in the interest, directl! or indirectl!, of
an! ?nited "enate senatorC
5e refused to anser the ,uestions and as prosecuted under an Act of Congress for contempt of the "enate. ?pon
being convicted and sent to :ail he petitioned the "upreme Court of the ?nited "tates for a rit of habeas corpus. 2ne of
the ,uestions decided b! the "upreme Court of the ?nited "tates in that case as hether the committee had the right to
compel the itness to anser said ,uestions, and the Court held that the committee did have such right, sa!ing'
The ,uestions ere undoubtedl! pertinent to the sub+ect,#atter of the in*uir'. The resolution directed the
committee to in,uire hether an! senator has been, or is, speculating in hat are 4non as sugar stoc4s during
the consideration of the tariff bill no before the "enate.I -hat the Senate #ight or #ight not do upon the facts
.hen ascertained, .e cannot sa', nor are .e called upon to in*uire hether such ventures might be defensible,
as contended in argument, but is plain that negative ansers ould have cleared that bod! of hat the "enate
regarded as offensive imputations, hile affirmative ansers might have led to further action on the part of the
"enate ithin its constitutional poers. AEmphasis supplied.B
1t ma! be contended that the determination of the parties responsible for the deal is incumbent upon the :udicial rather
than upon the legislative branch. But e thin4 there is no basis in fact or in la for such assumption. The petitioner has
not challenged the validit! of "enate Resolution No. 0, and that resolution e9pressl! re,uires the committee to determine
the parties responsible for the deal. (e are bound to presume that the "enate has acted in the due performance of its
constitutional function in instituting the in,uir!, if the act is capable of being so construed. 2n the other hand, there is no
suggestion that the :udiciar! has instituted an in,uir! to determine the parties responsible for the deal. ?nder the
circumstances of the case, it appearing that the ,uestioned transaction as affected b! the head of the 6epartment of
)ustice himself, it is not reasonable to e9pect that the <iscal or the Court of <irst 1nstance of Manila ill ta4e the initiative
to investigate and prosecute the parties responsible for the deal until and unless the "enate shall determined those
parties are and shall ta4en such measures as ma! be ithin its competence to ta4e the redress the rong that ma! have
been committed against the people as a result of the transaction. As e have said, the transaction involved no less than
P$,&&&,&&& of public funds. That certainl! is a matter of a public concern hich it is the dut! of the constitutional guardian
of the treasur! to investigate.
1f the sub:ect of investigation before the committee is ithin the range of legitimate legislative in,uir! and the proposed
testi#on' of the .itness called relates to that sub+ect, obedience, to its process ma! be enforced b! the committee b!
imprisonment. A"ullivan vs. 5ill, =8 (. @a., +%- =% ".E., ;=&- +& Ann. Cas. F#%#; B.G, ###$.B
The decision in the case of Kilbourn vs. Thompson, 7; *. ed., 8==, relied upon b! the petitioner, is not applicable here. 1n
that case the in,uir! instituted b! the 5ouse of Representatives of the ?nited "tates related to a private real.estate pool or
partnership in the 6istrict of Columbia. )a! Coo4 and Compan! had had an interest in the pool but become ban4rupts,
and their estate as in course of administration in a federal ban4ruptc! court in Penns!lvania. The ?nited "tates as one
of their creditors. The trustee in the ban4ruptc! proceeding had effected a settlement of the ban4rupts> interest in the pool,
and of course his action as sub:ect to e9amination and approval or disapproval b! the ban4ruptc! court. "ome of the
creditors, including the ?nited "tates, ere dissatisfied ith the settlement. The resolution of the 5ouse directed the
Committee Ito in,uire into the nature and histor! of said real.estate pool and the character of said settlement, ith the
amount of propert! involve, in hich )a! Coo4e and Co. ere interested, and the amount paid or to be paid in said
settlement, ith poer to send for persons and papers, and report to this 5ouse.I The "upreme Court of the ?nited
"tates, spea4ing thru Mr. )ustice Miller, pointed out that the resolution contained no suggestion of contemplated
legislation- that the matter as one in respect of hich no valid legislation could be had- that the ban4rupts> estate and the
trustee>s settlement ere still pending in the ban4ruptc! court- and that the ?nited "tates and other creditors ere free to
press their claims in that proceeding. And on these grounds the court held that in underta4ing the investigation Ithe 5ouse
of Representatives not onl! e9ceeded the limit of its on authorit!, but assumed a poer hich could onl! be properl!
e9ercised b! another branch of the government, because the poer as in its nature clearl! :udicial.I The principles
announced and applied in that case are' that neither 5ouse of Congress possesses a Igeneral poer of ma4ing in,uir!
into the private affairs of the citi/enI- that the poer actuall! possessed is limited to in,uires relating to matters of hich
the particular 5ouse has :urisdiction, and in respect of hich it rightfull! ma! ta4e other action- that if the in,uir! relates to
a matter herein relief or redress could be had onl! b! :udicial proceeding, it is not ithin the range of this poer , but
must be left to the court, conformabl! to the constitutional separation of government poers.
That case differs from the present case in to important respects' A#B There the court found that the sub:ect of the in,uir!,
hich related to a private real.estate pool or partnership, as not ithin the :urisdiction of either 5ouse of Congress- hile
here if it is not disputed that the sub:ect of the in,uir!, hich relates to a transaction involving a ,uestionable e9penditure
b! the 3overnment of P$,&&&,&&& of public funds, is ithin the :urisdiction of the "enate, A7B There the claim of the
3overnment as a creditor of )a! Coo4e and Compan!, hich had had an interest in the pool, as pending ad:udication b!
the court- hile here the interposition of the :udicial poer on the sub:ect of the in,uir! cannot be e9pected, as e have
pointed out above, until after the "enate shall have determined ho the parties responsible are and shall have ta4en such
measures as ma! be ithin its competence to ta4e to redress the rong that ma! have been committed against the
people as a result of the transaction.
1t is interesting to note that the decision in the case of Killbourn vs. Thompson has evo4ed strong criticisms from legal
scholars. ASee Potts, (o.er of !egislative odies to (unish for Conte#pt F#%7;G, =+ ?. Pa. *. Rev., ;%7.;%%- )ames *.
*and is, Constitutional !i#itations on the Congressional (o.er of /nvestigation F#%7;G, +& 5arvard *. Rev., #$8, #$+, 7#+.
77&.B (e ,uoted the folloing from Professor *and is> criticism' IMr. )ustice Miller sa the case purel! as an attempt b!
the 5ouse to secure to the 3overnment certain priorit! rights as creditor of the ban4rupt concern. To him it assumed the
character of a lasuit beteen the 3overnment and )a! Coo4e and Co., ith the 3overnment, acting through the 5ouse,
attempting to override the orderliness of established procedure and thereb! prefer a creditors> bill not before the courts but
before Congress. That ban4ruptc! proceedings had alread! been instituted against )a! Coo4e and Co., in a federal court
gave added impetus to such a conception. The 5ouse as see4ing to oust a court of prior ac,uired :urisdiction b! an
e9traordinar! and unarranted assumption of I:udicial poerIM The broader aspect of the investigation had not been
disclosed to the Court. That )a! Coo4e and Co.>s indebtedness and the particular funds in ,uestion ere onl! part of the
great administrative problem connected ith the use and disposition of public monies, that the particular failure as of
conse,uence mainl! in relation to the securit! demanded for all government deposits, that the facts connected ith one
such default revealed the possibilit! of other and greater maladministration, such considerations had not been put before
the Court. Nor had it been ac,uainted ith the ever!.da! nature of the particular investigation and the poers there
e9erted b! the 5ouse, poers hose e9ercise as customar! and familiar in legislative practice. 1nstead of assuming the
character of an e9traordinar! :udicial proceeding, the in,uir!, place in its proper bac4ground, should have been regarded
as a normal and customar! part of the legislative process. 6etailed definiteness of legislative purpose as thus made the
demand of the court in Killbourn vs. Thompson. But investigators cannot foretell the results that ma! be achieved. The
poer of Congress to e9ercise control over a real.estate pool is not a matter for abstract speculation but one to be
determined onl! after an e9haustive e9amination of the problem. Relationship, and not their possibilities, determine the
e9tent of congressional poer. Constitutionalit! depends upon such disclosures. Their presence, hether determinative of
legislative or :udicial poer, cannot be relegated to guessor4. Neither Congress nor the Court can predict, prior to the
event, the result of the investigation.I
The other case relied upon b! the petitioner is Marshall vs. 3ordon, 7+8 ?."., $7#- ;#. ed., 00#. The ,uestion there as
hether the 5ouse of Representatives e9ceeded its poer in punishing, as for contempt of its authorit!, the 6istrict
Attorne! of the "outhern 6istrict of Ne Dor4, ho had ritten, published, and sent to the chairman of one of its
committees an ill.tempered and irritating letter respecting the action and purposes of the committee in interfering ith the
investigation b! the grand :ur! of alleged illegal activities of a member of the 5ouse of Representatives. Poer to ma4e
in,uires and obtain evidence b! compulsor! process as not involved. The court recogni/ed distinctl! that the 5ouse of
Representatives had implied poer to punish a person not a member for contempt, but held that its action in this instance
as ithout constitutional :ustification. The decision as put on the ground that the letter, hile offensive and ve9atious,
as not calculated or li4el! to affect the 5ouse in an! of its proceedings or in the e9ercise of an! of its functions. This brief
statement of the facts and the issues decided in that case is sufficient to sho the inapplicabilit! thereof to the present
case. There the contempt involved consisted in the district attorne!>s riting to the chairman of the committee an offensive
and ve9atious letter, hile here the contempt involved consists in the refusal of the itness to anser ,uestions pertinent
to the sub:ect of an in,uir! hich the "enate has the poer and :urisdiction to ma4e . But in that case, it as recogni/ed
that the 5ouse of Representatives has implied poer to punish a person not a member of contempt. 1n that respect the
case is applicable here in favor of the "enate>s Aand not of the Petitioner>s B contention.
Second. 1t is ne9t contended for the petitioner that the "enate lac4s authorit! to commit him for contempt for a term
be!ond its period of legislative session, hich ended on Ma! #0, #%$&. This contention is based on the opinion of Mr.
)ustice Malcolm, concurred in b! )ustices "treet and @illa.Real, in the case of !ope" vs. 0e los Re'es A#%8&B, $$ Phil.,
#=&. 1n that case it appears that on 2ctober 78, #%7%, Candido *ope/ assaulted a member of the 5ouse of
Representatives hile the latter as going to the hall of the 5ouse of Representatives to attend the session hich as
then about to begin, as a result of hich assault said representative as unable to attend the sessions on that da! and
those of the to da!s ne9t folloing b! reason of the threats hich Candido *ope/ made against him. B! the resolution of
the 5ouse adopted November ;, #%7%, *ope/ as declared guilt! of contempt of the 5ouse of Representatives and
ordered punished b! confinement in Bilibid Prison for a period of tent!.four hours. That resolution as not complied ith
because the session of the 5ouse of Representatives ad:ourned at midnight on November 0, #%7%, and as reiterated at
the ne9t session on "eptember #;, #%8&. *ope/ as subse,uentl! arrested, hereupon he applied for the rit of habeas
corpus in the Court of <irst 1nstance of Manila, hich denied the application. ?pon appeal to the "upreme Court, si9
:ustices voted to grant the rit' )ustice Malcolm, "treet, and @illa.real, on the ground that the term of imprisonment meted
out to the petitioner could not legall! be e9tended be!ond the session of the bod! in hich the contempt occurred- and
)ustices )ohns, @illamor, and 2strand, on the ground that the Philippine *egislature had no poer to punish for contempt
because it as a creature merel! of an Act of the Congress of the ?nited "tates and not of a Constitution adopted b! the
people. Chief )ustice AvanceNa, )ustice )ohnson, and )ustice Romualde/ rote separate opinions, concurring ith
)ustice Malcolm, "treet, and @illa.Real, that the *egislature had inherent poer to punish for contempt but dissenting from
the opinion that the order of commitment could onl! be e9ecuted during the particular session in hich the act of contempt
as committed.
Thus, on the ,uestion under consideration, the Court as e,uall! divided and no decisive pronouncement as made. The
opinion of Mr. )ustice Malcolm is based mainl! on the folloing passage in the case of Anderson vs. 6unn, supra'
And although the legislative poer continues perpetual, the legislative bod! ceases to e9ist on the moment of its
ad:ournment or periodical dissolution. 1t follos that imprisonment must terminate ith that ad:ournment.
as ell as on the folloing ,uotation from Marshall vs. 3ordon, supra'
And the essential nature of the poer also ma4es clear the cogenc! and application of the to limitations hich
ere e9pressl! pointed out in Anderson vs. 6unn, supra, that is, that the poer even hen applied to sub:ects
hich :ustified its e9ercise is limited to imprisonment and such imprisonment ma! not be e9tended be!ond the
session of the bod! in hich the contempt occurred.
1nterpreting the above ,uotations, Chief )ustice AvanceNa held'
<rom this doctrine it follos, in m! :udgement, that the imposition of the penalt! is limited to the e9istence of the
legislative bod!, hich ceases to function upon its final periodical dissolution. The doctrine refers to its e9istence
and not to an! particular session thereof. This must be so, inasmuch as the basis of the poer to impose such
penalt! is the right hich the *egislature has to self.preservation, and hich right is enforceable during the
e9istence of the legislative bod!. Man! causes might be conceived to constitute contempt to the *egislature,
hich ould continue to be a menace to its preservation during the e9istence of the legislative bod! against hich
contempt as committed.
1f the basis of the poer of the legislature to punish for contempt e9ists hile the legislative bod! e9ercising it is in
session, then that poer and the e9ercise thereof must perforce continue until the final ad:ournment and the
election of its successor.
Mr. )ustice )ohnson>s more elaborate opinion, supported b! ,uotations from Coole!>s Constitutional !i#itations and from
)efferson>s 1anual, is to the same effect. Mr. )ustice Romualde/ said' I1n m! opinion, here as in the case before us, the
members composing the legislative bod! against hich the contempt as committed have not !et completed their three.
!ear term, the 5ouse ma! ta4e action against the petitioner herein.I
(e note that the ,uotations from Anderson vs. 6unn and Marshall vs. 3ordon relied upon b! )ustice Malcolm are obiter
dicta. Anderson vs. 6unn as an action of trespass against the "ergeant.at.Arms of the 5ouse of Representatives of the
?nited "tates for assault and batter! and false imprisonment. The plaintiff had been arrested for contempt of the 5ouse,
brought before the bar of the 5ouse, and reprimanded b! the "pea4er, and then discharged from custod!. The ,uestion
as to the duration of the penalt! as not involved in that case. The ,uestion there as Ihether the 5ouse of
Representatives can ta4e cogni/ance of contempt committed against themselves, under an! circumstances.I The court
there held that the 5ouse of Representatives had the poer to punish for contempt, and affirmed the :udgment of the
loer court in favor of the defendant. 1n Marshall vs. 3ordon, the ,uestion presented as hether the 5ouse had the
poer under the Constitution to deal ith the conduct of the district attorne! in riting a ve9atious letter as a contempt of
its authorit!, and to inflict punishment upon the riter for such contempt as a matter of legislative poer. The court held
that the 5ouse had no such poer because the riting of the letter did not obstruct the performance of legislative dut! and
did not endanger the preservation of the poer of the 5ouse to carr! out its legislative authorit!. ?pon that ground alone,
and not because the 5ouse had ad:ourned, the court ordered the discharge of the petitioner from custod!.
The case here the ,uestion as s,uarel! decided is Mc3rain vs. 6aughert!, supra. There it appears that the "enate
had adopted a resolution authori/ing and directing a select committee of five senators to investigate various charges of
misfeasance and nonfeasance in the 6epartment of )ustice after Attorne! 3eneral 5arr! M. 6aughert! became its
supervising head. 1n the course of the investigation the committee caused to be served on Mall! ". 6aughert!, brother of
5arr! M. 6aughert! and president of the Midland National Ban4 of (ashington Court 5ouse, 2hio, a subpoena
commanding him to appear before it for the purpose of giving testimon! relating to the sub:ect under consideration. The
itness failed to appear ithout offering an! e9cuse for his failure. The committee reported the matter to the "enate and
the latter adopted a resolution, IThat the President of the "enate pro tempore issue his arrant commanding the
"ergeant.at.Arms or his deput! to ta4e into custod! the bod! of the said M.". 6aughert! herever found, and to bring the
said M.". 6aughert! before the bar of the "enate, then and there to anser such ,uestions pertinent to the matter under
in,uir! as the "enate ma! order the President of the "enate pro tempore to propound- and to 4eep the said M.".
6aughert! in custod! to aait the further order of the "enate.I ?pon being arrested, the itness petitioned the federal
court in Cincinnati for a rit of habeas corpus. The federal court granted the rit and discharged the itness on the
ground that the "enate, in directing the investigation and in ordering the arrest, e9ceeded its poer under the
Constitution. ?pon appeal to the "upreme Court of the ?nited "tates, one of the contentions of the itness as that the
case ha become moot because the investigation as ordered and the committee as appointed during the "i9t!.eighth
Congress, hich e9pired on March +, #%7;. 1n overruling the contention, the court said'
. . . The resolution ordering the investigation in terms limited the committee>s authorit! to the period of the "i9t!.
eighth Congress- but this apparentl! as changed b! a later and amendator! resolution authori/ing the committee
to sit at such times and places as it might deem advisable or necessar!. 1t is said in )efferson>s Manual' INeither
5ouse can continue an! portion of itself in an! parliamentar! function be!ond the end of the session ithout the
consent of the other to branches. (hen done, it is b! a bill constituting them commissioners for the particular
purpose.I But the conte9t shos that the reference is to the to houses of Parliament hen ad:ourned b!
prorogation or dissolution b! the King. The rule ma! be the same ith the 5ouse of Representatives hose
members are all elected for the period of a single Congress' but it cannot ell be the same ith the "enate, hich
is a continuing bod! hose members are elected for a term of si9 !ears and so divided into classes that the seats
of one third onl! become vacant at the end of each Congress, to thirds ala!s continuing into the ne9t
Congress, save as vacancies ma! occur through death or resignation.
Mr. 5inds in his collection of precedents, sa!s' IThe "enate, as a continuing bod!, ma! continue its committees
through the recess folloing the e9piration of a Congress-I and, after ,uoting the above statement from
)efferson>s Manual, he sa!s' IThe "enate, hoever being a continuing bod!, gives authorit! to its committees
during the recess after the e9piration of a Congress.I "o far as e are advised the select committee having this
investigation in charge has neither made a final report nor been discharged- nor has been continued b! an
affirmative order. Apparentl! its activities have been suspended pending the decision of this case. But, be this as it
ma!, it is certain that the committee ma! be continued or revived no b! motion to that effect, and if, continued or
revived, ill have all its original poers. This being so, and the "enate being a continuing bod!, the case cannot
be said to have become moot in the ordinar! sense. The situation is measurabl! li4e that in "outhern P. Terminal
Co. vs. 1nterstate Commerce Commission, 7#% ?. "., +%0, $#+.$#;- $$ *. ed., 8#&, 8#$, 8#;- 8# "up. Ct. Rep.,
7=%, here it as held that a suit to en:oin the enforcement of an order of the 1nterstate Commerce Commission
did not become moot through the e9piration of the order here it as capable of repetition b! the Commission
and as a matter of public interest. 2ur :udgment ma! !et be carried into effect and the investigation proceeded
ith from the point at hich it apparentl! as interrupted b! reason of the habeas corpus proceedings. 1n these
circumstances e thin4 a :udgment should be rendered as as done in the case cited.
(hat has been said re,uires that the final order in the 6istrict Court discharging the itness from custod! be
reversed.
*i4e the "enate of the ?nited "tates , the "enate of the Philippines is a continuing bod! hose members are elected for a
term of si9 !ears and so divided that the seats of onl! one.third become vacant ever! to !ears, to.thirds ala!s
continuing into the ne9t Congress save as vacancies ma! occur thru death or resignation. Members of the 5ouse of
Representatives are all elected for a term of four !ears- so that the term of ever! Congress is four !ears. The "econd
Congress of the Philippines as constituted on 6ecember 8&, #%+%, and ill e9pire on 6ecember 8&, #%$8. The resolution
of the "enate committing the Petitioner as adopted during the first session of the "econd Congress, hich began on the
fourth Monda! of )anuar! and ended in Ma! #0, #%$&.
5ad said resolution of commitment been adopted b! the 5ouse of Representatives, e thin4 it could be enforced until the
final ad:ournment of the last session of the "econd Congress in #%$8. (e find no sound reason to limit the poer of the
legislative bod! to punish for contempt to the end of ever! session and not to the end of the last session terminating the
e9istence of that bod!. The ver! reason for the e9ercise of the poer to punish for contempt is to enable the legislative
bod! to perform its constitutional function ithout impediment or obstruction. *egislative functions ma! be and in practice
are performed during recess b! dul! constituted committees charged ith the dut! of performing investigations or
conducting hearing relative to an! proposed legislation. To den! to such committees the poer of in,uir! ith process to
enforce it ould be to defeat the ver! purpose for hich that the poer is recogni/ed in the legislative bod! as an
essential and appropriate au9iliar! to is legislative function. 1t is but logical to sa! that the poer of self.preservation is
coe9istent ith the life to be preserved.
But the resolution of commitment here in ,uestion as adopted b! the "enate, hich is a continuing bod! and hich does
not cease e9ist upon the periodical dissolution of the Congress or of the 5ouse of Representatives. There is no limit as to
time to the "enate>s poer to punish for contempt in cases here that poer ma! constitutionall! be e9erted as in the
present case.
Mere reflection upon the situation at hand convinces us of the soundness of this proposition. The "enate has ordered an
investigation of the Buenavista and Tambobong estates deal, hich e have found it is ithin its competence to ma4e.
That investigation has not been completed because of the refusal of the petitioner as a itness to anser certain
,uestions pertinent to the sub:ect of the in,uir!. The "enate has empoered the committee to continue the investigation
during the recess. B! refusing to anser the ,uestions, the itness has obstructed the performance b! the "enate of its
legislative function, and the "enate has the poer to remove the obstruction b! compelling the itness to anser the
,uestions thru restraint of his libert! until he shall have ansered them. That poer subsists as long as the "enate, hich
is a continuing bod!, persists in performing the particular legislative function involved. To hold that it ma! punish the
itness for contempt onl! during the session in hich investigation as begun, ould be to recogni/e the right of the
"enate to perform its function but at the same time to den! to it an essential and appropriate means for its performance.
Aside from this, if e should hold that the poer to punish for contempt terminates upon the ad:ournment of the session,
the "enate ould have to resume the investigation at the ne9t and succeeding sessions and repeat the contempt
proceedings against the itness until the investigation is completed.an absurd, unnecessar!, and ve9atious procedure,
hich should be avoided.
As against the foregoing conclusion it is argued for the petitioner that the poer ma! be abusivel! and oppressivel!
e9erted b! the "enate hich might 4eep the itness in prison for life. But e must assume that the "enate ill not be
disposed to e9ert the poer be!ond its proper bounds. And if, contrar! to this assumption, proper limitations are
disregarded, the portals of this Court are ala!s open to those hose rights might thus be transgressed.
$hird. *astl!, the petitioner invo4es the privilege against self.incrimination. 5e contends that he ould incriminate himself
if he should reveal the name of the person to hom he gave the P++&,&&& if that person be a public official be AitnessB
might be accused of briber!, and if that person be a private individual the latter might accuse him of oral defamation.
The ground upon hich the itness> claim is based is too sha4!, in firm, and slipper! to afford him safet!. At first he told
the Committee that the transactions ere legal, that no las ere violated, and that all re,uisites had been replied ith-
but at the time he begged to be e9cused from ma4ing ansers Ihich might later be used against me.I A little later he
e9plained that although the transactions ere legal he refused to anser ,uestions concerning them Ibecause it violates
the right of a citi/en to privac! in his dealings ith other people . . . 1 simpl! stand on m! privilege to dispose of the mone!
that has been paid to me as a result of a legal transaction ithout having to account for the use of it.I But after being
apparentl! convinced b! the Committee that his position as untenable, the itness testified that, ithout securing an!
receipt, he turned over the P++&,&&& to a certain person, a representative of Burt, in compliance ith Burt>s verbal
instruction made in #%+;- that as far as he 4no, that certain person had nothing to do ith the negotiations for the
settlement of the Buenavista and Tambobong cases- that he had seen that person several times before he gave him the
P++&,&&& on 2ctober 7%, #%+%, and that since then he had seen him again to or three times, the last time being in
6ecember, #%+%, in Manila- that the person as a male, 8% to +& !ears of age, beteen $ feet, 7 inches and $ feet, ;
inches in height. Butt the itness ould not reveal the name of that person on these prete9ts' I 1 don>t remember the
name- he as a representative of Burt.I I1 am not sure- 1 don>t remember the name.I
(e are satisfied that those ansers of the itness to the important ,uestion, hat is the name of that person to hom !ou
gave the P++&,&&&C ere obviousl! false. 5is insistent claim before the bar of the "enate that if he should reveal the
name he ould incriminate himself, necessaril! implied that he 4ne the name. Moreover, it is unbelievable that he gave
the P++&,&&& to a person to him un4non.
ITestimon! hich is obviousl! false or evasive is e,uivalent to a refusal to testif! and is punishable as contempt,
assuming that a refusal to testif! ould be so punishable.I A#7 Am. )ur., sec. #$, Contempt, pp. 8%%.+&&.B 1n the case of
Mason vs. ?."., ;# *. ed., ##%0, it appears that Mason as called to testif! before a grand :ur! engaged in investigating a
charge of gambling against si9 other men. After stating that he as sitting at a table ith said men hen the! ere
arrested, he refused to anser to ,uestions, claiming so to do might tend to incriminate him' A#B I(as there a game of
cards being pla!ed on this particular evening at the table at hich !ou are sittingCI A7B I(as there a game of cards being
pla!ed at another table at this timeCI The foreman of the grand :ur! reported the matter to the :udge, ho ruled Ithat each
and all of said ,uestions are proper and that the ansers thereto ould not tend to incriminate the itness.I Mason as
again called and refused to anser the first ,uestion propounded to him, but, half !ielding to frustration, he said in
response to the second ,uestion' I1 don>t 4no.I 1n affirming the conviction for contempt, the "upreme Court of the ?nited
"tates among other things said'
1n the present case, the itness certainl! ere not relieved from ansering merel! because the! declared that so
to do might incriminate them. The isdom of the rule in this regard is ell illustrated b! the enforced anser, I1
don>t 4no ,I given b! Mason to the second ,uestion, after he had refused to repl! under a claim of constitutional
privilege.
"ince according to the itness himself the transaction as legal, and that he gave the P++&,&&& to a representative of
Burt in compliance ith the latter>s verbal instruction, e find no basis upon hich to sustain his claim that to reveal the
name of that person might incriminate him. There is no conflict of authorities on the applicable rule, to it'
3enerall!, the ,uestion hether testimon! is privileged is for the determination of the Court. At least, it is not
enough for the itness to sa! that the anser ill incriminate him. as he is not the sole :udge of his liabilit!. The
danger of self.incrimination must appear reasonable and real to the court, from all the circumstances, and from
the hole case, as ell as from his general conception of the relations of the itness. ?pon the facts thus
developed, it is the province of the court to determine hether a direct anser to a ,uestion ma! criminate or
not. . . . The fact that the testimon! of a itness ma! tend to sho that he has violated the la is not sufficient to
entitle him to claim the protection of the constitutional provision against self.incrimination, unless he is at the same
time liable to prosecution and punishment for such violation. The itness cannot assert his privilege b! reason of
some fanciful e9cuse, for protection against an imaginar! danger, or to secure immunit! to a third person. A 8
(harton>s Cri#inal Evidence, ##th ed., secs. ##8$,##8;.B
1t is the province of the trial :udge to determine from all the facts and circumstances of the case hether the
itness is :ustified in refusing to anser. APeople vs. 3on/o, 78 N.E. F7dG, 7#& F1ll. App., #%8%G.B A itness is not
relieved from ansering merel! on his on declaration that an anser might incriminate him, but rather it is for the
trial :udge to decide that ,uestion. AMason vs. ?."., 7++ ?. "., 8;7- ;# *. ed., ##%8, #7&&.B
As against itness>s inconsistent and un:ustified claim to a constitutional right, is his clear dut! as a citi/en to give fran4,
sincere, and truthful testimon! before a competent authorit!. The state has the right to e9act fulfillment of a citi/en>s
obligation, consistent of course ith his right under the Constitution. The itness in this case has been vociferous and
militant in claiming constitutional rights and privileges but patentl! recreant to his duties and obligations to the
3overnment hich protects those rights under the la. (hen a specific right and a specific obligation conflict ith each
other, and one is doubtful or uncertain hile the other is clear and imperative, the former must give a! to the latter. The
right to life is one of the most sacred that the citi/en ma! claim, and !et the state ma! deprive him of it if he violates his
corresponding obligation to respect the life of others. As Mr. )ustice )ohnson said in Anderson vs. 6unn' IThe retch
beneath the gallos ma! repine at the fate hich aaits him, and !et it is not certain that the las under hich he suffers
ere made for the securit!.I Paraphrasing and appl!ing that pronouncement here, the petitioner ma! not relish the
restraint of his libert! pending the fulfillment b! him of his dut!, but it is no less certain that the las under hich his libert!
is restrained ere made for his elfare.
<rom all the foregoing, it follos that the petition must be denied, and it is so ordered, ith costs.
(aras, (ablo, eng"on, 1onte#a'or, and Re'es, JJ., concur.
Se)""$e O)(#(o#&
TUASON, J., dissenting'
The estates deal hich gave the petitioner>s e9amination b! a committee of the "enate as one that aroused popular
indignation as fe cases of graft and corruption have. The investigation as greeted ith spontaneous outburst of
applause b! an outraged citi/enr!, and the "enate as rightl! commended for ma4ing the lead in getting at the bottom of
an infamous transaction.
All the more necessar! it is that e should approach the consideration of this case ith circumspection, lest the influence
of strong public passions should get the batter of our :udgment. 1t is trite to sa! that public sentiment fades into
insignificance before a proper observance of constitutional processes, the maintenance of the constitutional structure, and
the protection of individual rights. 2nl! thus can a government of las, the foundation stone of human libert!, be
strengthened and made secure for that ver! public.
1t is ith these thoughts in mind that, ith sincere regret, 1 am constrained to dissent.
The poer of the legislative bodies under the American s!stem of government to punish for contempt as at the
beginning totall! denied b! some courts and students of constitutional la, on the ground that this poer is :udicial in
nature and belongs to the :udiciar! branch of the government under the constitutional scheme. The point hoever is no
settled in favor of the e9istence of the poer. This rule is based on the necessit! for the attainment of the ends for hich
legislative bod! is created. Nor can the legitimac! of the purpose of the investigation hich the "enate ordered in this
case be disputed. As a corollar!, it as li4eise legitimate and necessar! for the committee to summon the petitioner ith
a command to produce his boo4s and documents, and to commit him to prison for his refusal or failure to obe! the
subpoena. And, finall!, there is no ,uestion that the arresting officers ere full! :ustified in using necessar! bodil! force to
bring him before the bar of the "enate hen he feigned illness and stalled for time in the mista4en belief that after the
closing of the then current session of Congress he could go scot.free.
At the same time, there is also universal agreement that the poer is not absolute. The disagreement lies in the e9tent of
the poer, and such disagreement is to be found even beteen decisions of the same court. Anderson vs. 6unn, ;
(heat., No. 7&+, ma! be said to have ta4en the most liberal vie of the legislature>s authorit! and Kilbourn vs. Thompson,
#&8 ?.". #;0, hich partl! overruled and ,ualified the former, the strictest. B! the most liberal standard the poer is
restricted Ib! considerations as to the nature of the in,uir!, occasion, or action in connection ith hich the contemptuous
conduct has occurred.I Punishment must be resorted to for the efficient e9ercise of the legislative function. Even
Anderson vs. 6unn spea4s of the poer as Ithe least possible poer ade,uate to the end proposed.I
)udged b! an! test, the ,uestion propounded to the itness does not, in m! opinion, meet the constitutional re,uirement.
1t is obvious, 1 thin4, that the ,uer! has nothing to do ith an! matter ithin the cogni/ance of the Congress. There is, on
the contrar!, positive suggestion that the ,uestion has no relation to the contemplated legislation. The statement of the
committee in its report that the information sought to be obtained ould clear the names of the persons suspected of
having received the mone!, is, on the surface, the most or onl! plausible reason that can be advanced. Assuming this to
be the motive behind the ,uestion, !et little reflection ill sho that the same is be!ond the scope of legislative authorit!
and prerogatives. 1t is outside the concern of the Congress to protect the honor of particular citi/ens e9cept that of its on
members> as a means of preserving respect and confidence in that bod!. Moreover, the purported good intention must
assume, if it is to materiali/e, that the persons under suspicion are reall! innocent- for if the! are not and the itness ill
tell the truth, the result ill be to augment their disgrace rather than vindicate their honor. This is all the more li4el! to
happen because one of those persons, is :udged from the committee>s findings, the most li4el! one, to sa! the least, ho
got the mone!.
1f the process of deduction is pressed further, the reasonable conclusion seems to be that the ob:ect of the ,uestion is, to
mention onl! one, to prepare the a! for a court action. The ma:orit!, decision indirectl! admits or insinuates this to be the
case. 1t sa!s, I1t appearing that the ,uestioned transaction as affected b! the head of the 6epartment of )ustice himself,
it is not reasonable to e9pect the fiscal or the Court of <irst 1nstance of Manila ill ta4e the initiative to investigate and
prosecute the parties responsible for the deal until and unless the "enate shall have determined ho those parties are
and shall have ta4en such measures as ma! be ithin its competence to ta4e, to redress the rong that ma! have been
committed against the people as a result of the transaction.I "o here is an admission, implied if not e9press, that the
"enate ants the itness to give names because the fiscal or the courts ill not initiate an action against parties ho
should be prosecuted. 1t is needless to sa! that the institution of a criminal or civil suit is a matter that devolves upon other
departments of the government, alien to the duties of the Congress to loo4 after.
The Congress is at full libert!, of course, to ma4e an! investigation for the purpose of aiding the fiscal or the courts, but
this libert! does not carr! ith it the authorit! to imprison persons ho refuse to testif!.
1n the intricac! and comple9it! of an investigation it is often impossible to foretell before its close hat relation certain
facts ma! bear on the final results, and e9perience has shon that investigators and courts ould do ell to veer on the
liberal side in the resolution of doubtful ,uestions. But the "enate is not no in the midst of an in,uir! ith the situation
still in a fluid or tentative state. No the facts are no longer confused. The committee has finished its investigation and
submitted its final report and the "enate has approved a bill on the bases of the facts found. All the pertinent facts having
been gathered, as is to be inferred from that the report and the nature of the "enate>s action, ever! ,uestion, ever! fact,
ever! bit of testimon! has ta4en a distinct meaning susceptible of concrete and definite evaluation- the tas4 has been
reduced to the simple process of sifting the grain from the chaffs.
1n the light of the committee>s report and of the bill introduced and approved in the "enate, it seems ,uite plain that the
e9press naming of the recipient or recipients of the mone! is entirel! unessential to an!thing the "enate has a right or
dut! to do in premises. Names ma! be necessar! for the purpose of criminal prosecution, impeachment or civil suit. 1n
such proceedings, identities are essential. 1n some legislative investigations it is important to 4no the names of public
officials involved. But the particular disclosure sought of the petitioner here is immaterial to the proposed la. 1t is enough
for the "enate, for its on legitimate ob:ect, to learn ho the 6epartment of )ustice had in the purchase, and to have a
moral conviction as to the identit! of the person ho benefited thereb!. The need for such legislation and translated into
the bill approved b! the "enate is met b! an insight into a broad outline of the deal. To paraphrase the ?.". "upreme
Court in Anderson vs. 6unn, although the passage as used in another connection, legislation is a science of e9periment
and the relation beteen the legislator and the end does not have to be so direct as to stri4e the e!e of the former.
2ne of the proposed las have prohibits brothers and near relatives of an! president of the Philippines from intervening
directl! or indirectl! in transactions in hich the 3overnment is a part!. 1t is stated that this is sub:ect to change depending
on the anser Arnault ma! give. This statement is ide open to challenge.
1f Arnault should Antonio Luirino it must be admitted that the bill ould not be altered. But let us suppose that the itness
ill point to another man. (ill the result be an! differentC (ill the "enate recall the billC 1 can not perceive the slightest
possibilit! of such eventualit!. The pending bill as framed on the assumption that Antonio Luirino as a part! to the deal
in ,uestion. As has been said, the committee entertains a moral conviction that this brother of the President as the
recipient of a share of the proceeds of sale. No amount of assurance b! Arnault to the contrar! ould be believed for
truth. And, 1 repeat, the proposed legislation does not need for its :ustification legal evidence of Antonio Luirino>s
intervention in the transaction.
All this in the first place. 1n the second place, it is not to be assumed that the present bill is aimed solel! against Antonio
Luirino hose relation to the Administration is but temporar!. 1t is more reasonable to presume that the proposed
enactment is intended for all time and for all brothers of future presidents, for in realit! it is no more than an e9tension or
enlargement of las alread! found in the statute boo4 hich guard against temptations to e9ploit official positions or
influence to the pre:udice of public interests.
The disputed ,uestion is, in fact, not onl! irrelevant but moot. This is decisive of the irrelevanc! of this ,uestion. As has
been noticed, the committee has submitted its final report and recommendation, and a bill has been approved b! the
"enate calculated to prevent recurrence of the anomalies e9posed. <or the purpose for hich it as instituted the in,uir!
is over and the committee>s mission accomplished.
1t is true that the committee continues to sit during the recess of Congress, but it is obvious from all the circumstances that
the sole and real ob:ect of the e9tension of the committee>s sittings is to receive the itness> anser in the event he
capitulates. 1 am unable to see an! ne phase of the deal hich the "enate could legitimatel! ish to 4no, and the
respondents and this Court have not pointed out an!. That the committee has not sat and nothing has been done so far
e9cept to ait for Arnault>s anser is a convincing manifestation of the above conclusion.
The order Ito continue its investigationI contained in "enate Resolution No. #; cannot disguise the realities revealed b!
the "enate>s actions alread! referred to and b! the emphasis given to the instruction Ito continue its Acommittee>sB
e9amination of )ean *. Arnault regarding the name of the person to hom he gave the P++&,&&&.I The instruction >to
continue the investigation> is not entitled to the blind presumption that it embraces matters other than the revelation b! the
itness of the name of the person ho got the mone!. )urisdiction to deprive a citi/en of libert! outside the usual process
is not ac,uired b! innuendoes or vague assertions of the facts on hich :urisdiction is made to depend. 1f the :udgment of
the court of la of limited :urisdiction does not en:o! the presumption of legalit!, much less can the presumption of
regularit! be invo4ed for a resolution of a deliberative bod! hose poer to inflict punishment upon private citi/ens is
holl! derived b! implication and vehementl! contested b! some :udges. At an! rate, Ithe stronger presumption of
innocence attends accused at the trialI, Iand it is incumbentI upon the respondents Ito sho that the ,uestion pertains to
some matter under investigation.I A"inclair vs. ?. "., =8 *. ed., ;%8.B This rule stems from the fact that the poer is in
derogation of the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, libert!, or propert! ithout due process
of la, hich presupposes I a trial in hich the rights of the parties shall be decided b! a tribunal appointed b! la, hich
tribunal is to governed b! rules of la previousl! established.I Poers so dangerous to the libert! of a citi/en can not be
alloed e9cept here the pertinence is clear. A )udge ho abuses such poer ma! be impeached and he acts at all times
under the sense of this accountabilit! and responsibilit!. 5is victims ma! be reached b! the pardoning poer. But if the
Congress be alloed this unbounded :urisdiction of discretion, there is no redress, The Congress ma! dispoil of a citi/en>s
life, libert! or propert! and there is no poer on earth to stop its hand. There is, there can be, no such unlimited poer in
an! department of the government of the Republic. A*oan Association vs. Tope4a, 7& (all, Nos. ;;7, ;;8- Ta!lor vs.
Porter, + 5ill No. N.D. #+&.B
The above rule and discussion appl! ith e,ual force to the instruction to the committee in the original resolution, Ito
determine the parties responsible for the deal.I 1t goes ithout sa!ing that the congress cannot authori/e a committee to
do hat it itself cannot do. 1n other ords, theO "enate could not insist on the disclosure of Arnault>s accomplice in the
present state of the investigation if the "enate ere conducting the in,uir! itself instead of through a committee.
2ur attention is called to the fact that Iin the Philippines, the legislative poer is vested in the Congress of the Philippines
alone, and therefore that the Congress of the Philippines has a ider range of legislative field than the Congress of the
?nited "tates or an! state legislature.I <rom this premise the inference is dran that I the field of in,uir! into it APhilippine
CongressB ma! enter is also ider.I
This argument overloo4s the important fact that congressional or legislative committees both here and in the ?nived
"tates, do not embar4 upon fishing e9peditions in search of information hich b! chance ma! be useful to legislation.
1n,uiries entrusted to congressional committee, hether here or in the ?nited "tates, are necessaril! for specific ob:ects
ithin the competence of the Congress to loo4 into. 1 do not believe an! reason, rule or principle could be found hich
ould sustain the theor! that :ust because the ?nited "tates Congress or a state legislature could legislate on, sa!, onl!
ten sub:ects and the Philippine Congress on tent!, the latter>s poer to commit to prison for contempt is proportionatel!
as great as that of the former. 1n the consideration of the legalit! of an imprisonment for the contempt b! each 5ouse, the
poer is gauged not be the greater or lesser number of sub:ect matters that fall ithin its sphere of action, but b! the
anser to the ,uestion, has it :urisdiction over the matter under investigationC Bearing this distinction in mind, it is
apparent that the poer of a legislature to punish for contempt can be no greater nor less than that of an! other. (ere it
possible for the Philippine "enate and the ?nited "tates "enate to underta4e an investigation of e9actl! identical
anomalies in their respective departments of :ustice, could it be asserted ith an! support of logic that one "enate has a
ider authorit! to imprison for contempt in such investigation simpl! because it has a Iider range of legislative fieldCI
1t is said that the "enate bill has not been acted upon b! the loer house and that even if it should pass in that chamber it
ould still have the President>s veto to hurdle. 1t has been e9pressl! stated at the oral argument, and there is insinuation
in this Court>s decision, that the revelation of the name or names of the person or persons ho received the mone! ma!
help in convincing the 5ouse of Representatives or the President of the isdom of the pending measure. Entirel! apart
from the discussion that the 5ouse of Representatives and the Chief E9ecutive have their on idea of hat the! need to
guide them in the discharge of their respective duties, and the! have the facilities of their on for obtaining the re,uisite
data.
There is another ob:ection, more fundamental, to the "enate invo4ing the interest or convenience of the other 5ouse or
the President as ground of :urisdiction. The 5ouse of Representatives and the President are absolutel! independent of the
"enate, in the conduct of legislative and administrative in,uiries, and the poer of each 5ouse to imprison for contempt
does not go be!ond the necessit! for its on self.preservation or for ma4ing its e9press poers effective. Each 5ouse
e9ercises this poer to protect or accomplish its on authorit! and not that of the other 5ouse or the President. Each
5ouse and the President are supposed to ta4e care of their respective affairs. The to 5ouses and the Chief E9ecutive
act separatel! although the concurrence of the three is re,uired in the passage of legislation and of both 5ouses in the
approval of resolutions. As the ?.". "upreme Court in Kilbourn vs. Thompson, said, INo general poer of inflicting
punishment b! the Congress Aas distinct from a 5ouse is found in the Constitution.I IAn act of Congress J it said J
hich proposed to ad:udge a man guilt! of a crime and inflict the punishment, ill be considered b! all thin4ing men to be
unauthori/ed b! the Constitution.I
Kilbourn vs. Thompson, supra, it is said can not be relied on in this case as a precedent because, so it is also said, Ithe
sub:ect of the in,uir!, hich related to a private real.estate pool or partnership, as not ithin the :urisdiction of either
5ouse of Congress- hile here it is not disputed that the sub:ect of the in,uir!, hich relates to a transaction involving a
,uestionable e9penditure b! the 3overnment of P$,&&&,&&& of public funds, is ithin the )urisdiction of the "enate.I Det
the remar4s of )udge *and is hich are ,uoted in the ma:orit! decision point out that the in,uir! Ias a normal and
customar! part of the legislative process.I Moreover, Kilbourn vs. Thompson is important, not for the matter it treated but
for the principles it enunciated.
1t is also said that Kilbourn vs. Thompson did not meet ith universal approval as )udge *and is> article above mentioned
shos. The :urist ho delivered the opinion in that case, Mr. )ustice Miller, as one of the IgiantsI ho have ever sat on
the "upreme <ederal Bench, venerated and eminent for the idth and depth of his learning. "ubse,uent decisions, as far
as 1 have been able to ascertain, have not re:ected or critici/ed but have folloed it, and it still stands as a landmar4 in this
branch of constitutional la.
1f e can lean on private opinions and maga/ine articles for comfort, the petitioner can cite one b! a legal scholar and
author no less re4non and respected than )udge *and is. 1 refer to )udge (igmore ho, referring to an investigation of
the ?.". 6epartment of )ustice said in an article published in #% A#%7$B 1llinois *a Revie, +$7'
The senatorial debauch of investigations J po4ing into political garbage cans and dragging the seers of political
intrigue J filled the inter of #%78.7+ ith a stench hich has not !et passed aa!. 1nstead of emplo!ing the
constitutional, manl!, fair procedure of impeachment, the "enate flung self.respect and fairness to the inds. As a
prosecutor, the "enate presented a spectacle hich cannot even be dignified b! a comparison ith the
persecutive scoldings of Co4e and "croggs and )effre!s, but fell rather in popular estimate to the level of
professional searchers of the municipal dunghills.
1t is far from m! thought to subscribe to this vituperation as applied to our "enate. Certainl!, this august bod! said not onl!
do the right thing but is entitled to the lasting gratitude of the people for ta4ing the courageous stand it did in probing into
an anomal! that robbed a depleted treasur! of a huge amount. 1 have tried to ma4e it clear that m! disagreement ith the
ma:orit! lies not in the propriet! or constitutionalit! of the investigation but in the pertinence to that investigation of a single
,uestion. The investigation, as had been said, as legal and commendable. M! ob:ection is that the "enate having
started ithin the bounds of its authorit!, has, in entire good faith, overstepped those bounds and trespassed on a territor!
reserved to other branches of the government, hen it imprisoned a itness for contumac! on a point that is unimportant,
useless, impertinent and irrelevant, let alone moot.
Thus understood, this humble opinion does not conflict ith the vies of )udge *and is and all other advocates of ide
latitude for congressional investigations. All are agreed, and the ma:orit! accept the proposition, that there is a limit to the
legislative poer to punish for contempt. The limit is set in Anderson vs. 6unn hich )udge *and is approved J Ithe least
possible poer ade,uate to the end proposed.I