University of the Philippines College of Law

APAB III, 1-D

GR Number/ Case Date: GR No. L-3820 / July 18, 1950

Ponente: Ozaeta, J.
Petitioners: Jean L. Arnault
Respondents: Leon Nazareno (Sergeant-at-Arms), Philippine Senate, Eustaquio Balagtas (Director of
Prisons) Topic: Legislative Investigations
DOCTRINE
The power of inquiry, with process to enforce it, is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the
legislative function.
While the existence of the House of Representatives is limited to four years, that of the Senate is not
so limited. The Senate is a continuing body which does not cease to exist upon the periodical
dissolution of the Congress or of the House of Representatives. There is no limit as to time to the
Senate's power to punish for contempt in cases where that power may constitutionally be exerted.

RELEVANT FACTS

This is an original petition for habeas corpus to relieve the petitioner from his
confinement in the New Bilibid Prison because of his refusal to reveal the persons
name to whom he gave the Php440,000 as well as answer other pertinent questions
o He will be discharged when he reveals the necessary information
The Philippine Government, through the Rural Progress Administration, sought to
buy two estates known as Buenavista and Tambobong.
o Sum was paid to Ernest H. Burt, a nonresident American, through his
attorney-in-fact in the Philippines, Jean L. Arnault (petitioner).
o San Juan de Dios Hospital, the original owner of Buenavista sold the estate
to Burt for P5,000,000.
o Philippine Trust Company, the original owner of Tambobong, sold the estate
to Burt for P1,200,000; however, Burt was unable to pay the sum amount in
the manner they agreed upon within nine-months. Philippine Trust Company
delivered the estate to Rural Progress Administration by an absolute deed of
sale in consideration of the sum of P750,000.
o February 1948, Rural Progress Administration under Article 1504 of the Civil
Code made notorial demand upon Burt for the resolution and cancellation of
his contract to purchase with the Philippine Trust Company due to his failure
to pay.
October 1949, the Philippine Government, through the Rural Progress
Administration, finally bought the two estates known as Buenavista and Tambobong
for the sums of P4,500,000 and P500,000, respectively.
February 1950, Senate adopted Resolution No. 8: Resolution Creating a Special
Committee to Investigate the Buenavista and Tambobong Estates Deal to determine
whether the purchase of the estates was honest, valid, and proper and whether the
price involved in the deal was fair and just.
o Buenavista could have been bought for 3M or through Japanese military
notes, which the Philippines already possessed.
o Tambobong Estate was practically owned by the Philippine Government by
virtue of a deed of sale for 750,000 through Burt.
Jean Arnault, among others, was called as witness to determine who were responsible
for and who benefited from the transaction at the expense of the Government.
o Arnault testified that the two checks (sum P1,500,000) were delivered to
 University of the Philippines College of Law
APAB III, 1-D

him, which he deposited immediately, but he later withdrew P440,000

payable to cash. Senate wants to know who the recipient of this sum is.
At the first hearing (reading from a note), Arnault declared that the
transactions were legal and he acted in a purely functional capacity of
representative. Thus, he begged to be excused from making answers to which
might be used against him later. I have been assured that it is my
constitutional right to refuse to incriminate myself. He refused to give the
name of the recipient of the P440,000. He was arraigned for contempt due to
this.
o May 15 Resolutions: (1) Petitioner was committed to the custody of the
Sergeant-at-Arms and imprisoned until he shall have purged the contempt by
revealing the name of the recipient. (2) Special Committee shall continue its
investigation.
o First session was adjourned at midnight May 18, 1950.
ISSUE
WON the Senate has power to punish Arnault for contempt for refusing to reveal the
name of the person to whom he gave the P440,000
WON the Senate lacks authority to commit Arnault for contempt for a term beyond
its period of legislative session, which ended on May 18, 1950
WON the privilege against self incrimination protects the petitioner from being
questioned

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue
WON the Senate has power
to punish Arnault for
contempt for refusing to
reveal the
name of the person to whom
he gave the P440,000
WON the Senate lacks
authority to commit Arnault
for contempt for a term
beyond
its period of legislative
Ratio
Yes, the Senate has power to punish Arnault.
Once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the jurisdiction
of a legislative body to make, the investigating committee has the
power to require a witness to answer any question pertinent to that
inquiry, subject of course to his constitutional right against self-
incrimination.
The inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the legislative body to
make, must be material or necessary to the exercise of a power in it
vested by the Constitution, and every question which the investigator
is empowered to coerce a witness to answer must be material or
pertinent to the subject of the inquiry or investigation.
The power of the Court is limited to determining whether the
legislative body has jurisdiction to institute the inquiry or investigation.
This Court cannot control the exercise of that jurisdiction; and it is
insinuated, that the ruling of the Senate on the materiality of the
question propounded to the witness is not subject to review by this
Court under the principle of the separation of power.
No, the Senate does not lack authority.
The Senate of the Philippines is a continuing body. There is no reason
to limit the
power of the legislative body to punish for contempt to the end of

session, which ended on May
18, 1950
WON the privilege against
self incrimination protects
the petitioner from being
questioned
University of the Philippines College of Law
APAB III, 1-D
every session. The
very reason for the exercise of the power to punish for contempt is to
enable the
legislative body to perform its constitutional function without
impediment or
obstruction. To deny to such committees the power of inquiry with
process to enforce
it would be to defeat the very purpose of the legislative body; it is an
essential and
appropriate auxiliary to its legislative function.
The Senate, which is a continuing body, does not cease to exist upon
the periodical
dissolution of the Congress or of the House of Representatives. There is
no limit as to
time to the Senates power to punish for contempt in cases where that
power may
constitutionally be exerted as in the present case.
But, Senate will not be disposed to exert the power beyond its proper
bounds, i.e.
abuse their power and keep the witness in prison for life. If proper
limitations are
disregarded, Court is always open to those whose rights might thus be
transgressed.
No, it does not protect the petitioner.
The Court is satisfied that those answers of the witness to the
important question,
which is the name of that person to whom witness gave the P440,000,
were obviously
false. His insistent claim before the bar of the Senate that if he should
reveal the
name he would incriminate himself, necessarily implied that he knew
the name.
It is unbelievable that he gave P440,000 to a person to him unknown.
Testimony
which is obviously false or evasive is equivalent to a refusal to testify
and is
punishable as contempt, assuming that a refusal to testify would be so
punishable.
o First session was adjourned at midnight May 18, 1950.
o Since according to the witness himself the transaction was legal, and
that he
gave the P440,000 to a representative of Burt in compliance with the
latters
verbal instruction, Court found no basis upon which to sustain his claim
 University of the Philippines College of Law
APAB III, 1-D

that
to reveal the name of that person might incriminate him.

RULING

From all the foregoing, it follows that the petition must be DENIED, and it is so
ordered, with costs.
Dissenting OPINIONS

Tuason, J.
In the light of the committee's report and of the bill introduced and appproved in the Senate, it
seems quite plain that the express naming of the recipient or recipients of the money is entirely
unessential to anything the Senate has a right or duty to do in the premises. o The particular disclosure
sought of the petitioner here is immaterial to the proposed law. It is enough for the Senate, for its own
legitimate object, to learn how the Department of Justice was being run, to know the part the
Secretary of Justice had in the purchase, and to have a moral conviction as to the identity of the person
who benefited thereby.
The disputed question is, in fact, not only irrelevant but moot. This is decisive of the irrelevancy of
this question. As has been noticed, the committee has submitted its final report and recommendation,
and a bill has been approved by the Senate calculated to prevent recurrence of the anomalies exposed.
For the purpose for which it was instituted the inquiry is over and the committee's mission
accomplished.
I have tried to make it clear that my disagreement with the majority lies not in the propriety or
constitutionality of the investigation but in the pertinency to that investigation of a single question.
The investigation, as has been said, was legal and commendable. My objection is that the Senate
having started within the bounds of its authority, has, in entire good faith, overstepped those bounds
and trespassed on a territory reserved to other branches of the government, when it imprisoned a
witness for contumacy on a point that is unimportant, useless, impertinent and irrelevant, let alone
moot.
NOTES