POWER TO ISSUE SUMMONS

Senate Blue Ribbon Committee vs. Majaducon

Anyone except the President and Justices of the SC may be summoned. Court may not prevent a witness
from appearing in such hearing

Facts:

This case had its aegis when the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee conducted an inquiry into the alleged
mismanagement of the funds and investment of the Armed Forces Retirement and Separation Benefits
System (AFP-RSBS). During the public hearings by the Blue Ribbon Committee, it appeared that the AFP-
RSBS purchased a lot from Atty. Nilo J. Flaviano worth P10,500 per square meter. However, the deed of
sale filed with the Register of Deeds indicated that the purchase price of the lot was only P3,000 per
square meter. The Committee caused the service of a subpoena to Atty. Flaviano, directing him to
appear and testify before it. Respondent refused to appear and filed a petition for prohibition and
preliminary injunction with prayer for temporary restraining order with the RTC of General Santos City.
The trial court issued a TRO directing the committee to cease and desist from proceeding with the
inquiry. The Committee filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and failure to state
a valid cause of action. The Trial Court denied the motion to dismiss. Hence, this petition for certiorari
alleging that Judge Majaducon committed grave abuse of discretion and acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent Judge Jose Majaducon committed grave abuse of discretion when he
dismissed the petition for prohibition and issued the writ of preliminary injunction. YES

Ruling: YES

The assailed resolution of respondent Judge Majaducon was issued without legal basis. The principle of
separation of powers essentially means that legislation belongs to Congress, execution to the Executive,
and settlement of legal controversies to the Judiciary. Each is prevented from invading the domain of
the others. When the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee served subpoena on respondent Flaviano to
appear and testify before it in connection with its investigation of the alleged misuse and
mismanagement of the AFP-RSBS funds, it did so pursuant to its authority to conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation. This is clearly provided in Article 6, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution:

The Senate of the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in
aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons
appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.

Also, the ruling in Bengzon vs. Blue Ribbon Committee cited by the respondent does not apply in this
case. The factual circumstances therein are different from those in the case at bar. In Bengzon, no
intended legislation was involved and the subject matter of the inquiry was more within the province of
the courts rather than the legislature. On the other hand, there was in this case a clear legislative
purpose, and this is to look into the reported misuse and mismanagement of the AFP-RSBS funds, with
the intention of enacting appropriate legislation to protect the rights and interests of the officers and
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

Romero vs. Estrada

Inquiries are tools to enable the legislative body to gather information and, thus, legislate wisely and
effectively.

Romero was invited by the Senate Committee on Labor, Employment, etc. to participate in an
inquiry in aid of legislationspecifically for the purpose of considering amendments to RA 8042.
Romero asked to be excused the request was denied. Senator Estrada, the Chairperson of the
Committee issued a subpoena against Romero, directing the latter to attend the hearings. In a petition
for Prohibition before the SC, the petitioners averred that due to a case pending before the SC (Chavez
v. NHA), the subject matter of the Senate investigation is sub judice; the investigation sought to
determine the petitioners criminal liabilitythus is not in aid of legislation; compelling the petitioners
appearance would amount to a violation of the Constitutional right against self-incrimination.

The SC decided against the Romero et al.

1. The subject matter of the Senate investigation is no longer sub judice: moot and aca ademic.
The SC had already denied the petition of Chavez
2. More importantly, even if Chavez were still pending before the SCit would still not bar the
Senate investigation. A legislative investigation in aid of legislation and court proceedings has
different purposes. Inquiries are tools to enable the legislative body to gather information and,
thus, legislate wisely and effectively. As had previously been held in SCB v. Senate Committee,
on-going judicial proceedings do not preclude congressional hearings in aid of legislation. There
is no reason to extend the applicability of the doctrine to cases pending on appeal.
3. In any case, the termination of the investigation has mooted the petition. Congress has not
opted to take anew the subject matter of the investigation in the current Congressional session.
4. The right against self-incrimination can only be invoked when an incriminating question has
been asked.

Standard Chartered Bank v Senate Committee on Banks

The exercise of sovereign legislative authority cannot be made subordinate to a criminal or an
administrative investigation.

Senator Enrile gave a privileged speech against Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), for allegedly
selling unregistered foreign securities in violation of the Securities Deregularization Code. (SCB
had been among the foreign banks granted the privilege of doing business in the Philippines.)
Senator Angara, the Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Banks, set an initial hearing and
invited SCB. SCB responded to inform the Committee that there were already pending cases
involving the same issues, thus the Committee may not have jurisdiction over 26 the subject of
the investigation. The hearings proceeded, nonetheless, and SCB was subpoenaed. Thus, SCB
filed a petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court.
The SC decided against SCB.

1. Bengzon does not apply. Unlike in Bengzon, the inquiry in the case at bar is in aid of
legislation. The letter sent by Mark Bocobo humbly asked that an inquiry be madenot for
the purposes of recovering, and not in aid of collecting. And the whereas clauses found in
the Resolution that directed the inquiry reveal the purpose of conducting said inquiry to
look into regulation-related issues, with the possibility of recommending amendatory
legislation.
2. The mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before a court or a quasi-
judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation. The
exercise of sovereign legislative authority cannot be made subordinate to a criminal or an
administrative investigation.
3. The Senate is within its powers to punish for contempt. The exercise by Congress or by any
of its committees of the power to punish contempt is based on the principle of
selfpreservation: it can assert its authority and punish contumacious acts against it. The
petitioners imputation that the investigation was in aid of collection is a direct challenge
against the authority of the Senate Committee, as it ascribes ill motive to the latter.
4. There was no violation of the petitioners right to privacythe inquiry was for a valid
purpose, in contemplation of foreign bank regulation. Neither was there a violation of the
right against self-incrimination: SCB was merely invited as a resource person.
5. The petition for prohibition is moot: the Senate Committee has already submitted its report.

--POWER TO PUNISH CONTEMPT

Arnault vs Nzazreno
The Senate is a continuing body, the contempt order it issued is also continuing even
beyond the period the contempt was issued.

The Senate created a special committee to investigate a controversy surrounding the

purchase of two estates by American Citizen, Burt. The Government had ended up paying
Burt P1.5M for the purchase of said estates when the latter had only paid P20K in total for
the two, as down payment. To aid its inquiry, the Committee called Arnaultthe attorney of
Burtto testify. Arnault said that, of the P1.5M, he had enchased P440K, and had given the
money to another person, allegedly following the instructions of Burt. He refused to divulge
the name of the recipient, and justified his refusal on his right against selfincrimination.
According to Arnault, if the person he ended up identifying was a public official, then he may
be held liable for bribery; and even if the person was a private citizen, he may be held liable
for slander. Consequently, the Senate held Arnault in contempt and committed him to the
custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The instructions of the Senate were to keep Arnault
imprisoned until he manes the person who received the encashed portion in question.
Arnault petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus with the SC, questioning the authority of the
Senate to hold him in contempt, and legality of keeping him imprisoned even after the
Senate had already adjourned.
 The SC decided against Arnault.

1. The Senate may punish Arnault for contempt, for refusing to answer questions put
forward to him.
The Senates authority to make inquiries is subject to a set of parameters:

(i) the inquiries must not violate the Constitutional right against self-incrimination;
(ii) they must be material to a function granted by the Constitutionfor example,
legislation and expulsion of a member;
(iii) the questions must be pertinent to the matter under inquiry.

In the case at bar, the Senate did not go beyond these parameters. Arnault himself had maintained that
the transactions under question were not illegal; the inquiry was carried out in aid of legislation; and,
the question which Arnault refused to answer the identity of the recipient of the encashed amount
was pertinent to the subject of the inquiry (one of the mandates of the Committee, as contained in the
Senate Resolution that created it, was to identify the parties involved in the controversy).

2. Because the Senate is a continuing body, the contempt order it issued is also continuingeven
beyond the period of the session when the contempt order was issued. As in the United States, the
Senate is a continuing body. During a particular election, only a portion of its membersnot allvacate
their seats: unlike the House of Representatives where in every election, all of the seats in the House are
contested.

Overturned the decision of Lopez vs. delos Reyes Senate is a continuing body
Insofar as the day-to-day session is concerned, it ends upon the adjournment.
When adjourned, all pending cases of the Senate are terminated upon the expiration of the
session

Lopez vs Delos Reyes

The House of Representatives has a limited power to punish for contempt. The nature of their power:
coercive rather than punitive.

imprisonment must cease upon adjournment of the session.

The House of Representatives had passed a resolution to order the arrest of Candido Lopez who was
to be confined in Bilibid for 24 hours. Lopez had assaulted one of the Members of the House, and
because of that had been held guilty of contempt by the House. The original resolution had been issued
on 6 Nov 1929, but Congress adjourned on 8 Nov 1929. By the time of adjournment, the arrest had not
yet been served. Thus, during the following Session, the House issued a confirmatory resolution and
issued another warrant to arrest Lopez. Lopez was taken into custody soon after. Thus, he filed a
petition to be issued a writ of habeas corpus.

The SC decided in favor of Lopez.

 1. The House of Representatives has a limited power to punish for contempt. The nature of their
power: coercive rather than punitive. When Congress wields the power, it does so in vindication
of its own privileges. Such a power is essential to ensure that Congress shall be able to perform
its duties without impediment
2. The limit of imprisonment for contempt is a term not exceeding the session of the deliberative
body in which the contempt occurred. Thus, imprisonment must cease upon adjournment of the
session. The resolution of the previous session cannot be revived by mere approval. There is
precedent to hold imprisonment for contempt beyond a session is allowed.

Neri vs Senate

Yu Note: The Court clarified that as an institution, the Senate was a continuing body; however, on a
day-to-day basis, Senate sessions are different. According to Yu, in dichotomizing, the Court merely
reinforced the Garcillano obiter.

NEDA DG, Romulo Neri, testified before the Senate on the NBN-ZTE scandalallegedly Comelec
Chairperson Abalos had offered P200M to Neri in exchange for approval of the project. (The President,
upon hearing about the offer, supposedly instructed Neri not to accept.) During the inquiry, Neri
invoked Executive Privilege regarding discussions between him and the President. Ermita said that the
information may impair the diplomatic relations of the Philippines with China. For his refusal to answer a
set of questions:

(i) WON President followed up the NBN project;

(ii) WON she directed him to prioritize it;
(iii) WON she directed him to approve it. Consequently, Neri was ordered arrested.

The SC decided in favor of Neri.

1. The SC clarified which questions were covered by Executive Privilege:

a. Presidential Communications Privilege (relating to core functions)
b. b. Deliberative Processes Privilege
i. Must refer to non-delegable Presidential Powers (ex. Authority to enter Executive
Agreements with other countries)
ii. Must have been received by close advisors of the President
iii. Must be no compelling need to limit the privilege 25

Note: the case at bar does not involve criminal proceedings

2. There was Grave Abuse of Discretion in issuing the contempt order. There was a legitimate claim to
Executive Privilege in the case at bar. Also, the Senate did not comply with the requirement set forth in
Senate v. Ermita that the invitation should contain the possible needed statute and the questions
needed for furtherance thereof. When the contempt order was issued, only a minority of the members
were present (according to the Senate Rules, the vote must be made by a majority). The Rules of
Procedure were not published. Lastly, the Committee did not even pass on the issue of Executive
Privilege.