Bengzon v.

Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

[G.R. No. 136760; July 2! 2003"
Facts:
Case concerns a petition for prohibition with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or injunctive relief
from the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee from requiring herein
petitioners to testify and produce evidence related to the latters
inquiry on the sale of equity of Benjamin !o"oy# Romual$ to the
%opa &roup' (n the aforementioned case) Romualde$ is accused of
various acts of corruption and embe$$lement of funds) which were
supposedly hidden through various corporations' *n Sept' +,
+-..) Sen' /uan 0once 1nrile in his privilege speech called upon to
loo" into the possible violation of the law in the case) particularly
with regard to R2 3o' ,4+-) or the 2nti5&raft and Corrupt
0ractices 2ct'
0etitioners contend that the order of the Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee for them to testify is not within its jurisdiction or
legislative purpose) and is in clear and blatant disregard of their
constitutional rights'
Respondent Committee on the other hand claims that the court
cannot inquire into the motives of the lawma"ers in conducting
legislative investigations under the doctrine of separation of
powers'
Issue:
6*3 the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee can require the
petitioners to attend said inquiries and testify concerning the said
case'
6*3 the SC has jurisdiction to review the motives of lawma"ers
in conducting legislative investigations
Held:
SC ruled that the Committee cannot require herein petitioners to
participate and answer questions as the law states that o7icers
can only be required to attend legislative inquiries if the purpose
of such a session is to aid legislation) as stated in the Constitution'
(n this case) there is not suggestion of contemplated legislation8
the purpose of the said session is merely to 9nd out whether or not
violations were committed against R2 ,4+-'
(n relation to the issue regarding the separation of powers) the SC
ruled that while it is true that each branch of government has their
own distinct set of roles and responsibilities) it does not follow that
the distinctions between the branches are intended for them to be
absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other' :he
purpose of the principle of chec"s and balances is to ensure that
no branch of government abuses its power and overrides another
government' 2nd since it is the mandate of the judicial body to
review actual controversies) it is within its realm to review the
issues arising from this said con;ict) even if it concerns another
body of government'
0etition for certiorari/prohibition is &R23:1<' Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee is enjoined from compelling petitioners to
testify before it and produce evidence at inquiry'
Blue Ribbon Committee v. Ju#ge $a%u#u&on
[GR No. 136760! 07'2'03"
0onente: =nares5Santiago /' > consolidated petitions: ?/uly
>-) >44,@
FACTS
2ug >.) +--.' Senator Blas *ple 9led SR3 +AB'
- directing 3ational <efense and Security) to conduct inquiry)
in aid of legislation) into the charges of then <efense
Secretary *rlando Cercado that a group of active and
retired military o7icers were organi$ing a coup detat to
prevent the administration of then 0resident /oseph
1strada from probing alleged fund irregularities in the
2rmed Dorces of the 0hilippines'
2ug >.) +--.' Senator Eicente Sotto ((( 9led SR3 +F4'
- directing appropriate Senate Committee to conduct inquiry)
in aid of legislation) into alleged mismanagement of funds
and investment portfolio of 2D05RSBS G2rmed Dorces
Retirement and Separation Bene9ts SystemH
Senate 0resident referred SR3s to:
a' Committee on 2ccountability of 0ublic o7icers and
(nvestigations ?Blue Ribbon Committee@
b' Committee on 3ational <efense and Security
(n public hearing of Blue Ribbon Committee) appeared that
2D05RSBS purchased lot in &enSan I%*: J CR5++F4K for
0hp+4)444/sqm' (n <eed of Sale) Registry of <eeds) purchase
price: 0hp ,444/sqm' Blue Ribbon Committee services
SLB0*132 to 2tty' Dlaviano) directing him to appear and
testify'
SUBPOENA: a writ commanding person to attend
court under penalty for failure to do so'
2tty' Dlaviano refused' Me 9led a petition for prohibition and
preliminary injunction with prayer for temporary restraining
order with the R:C of &eneral Santos City) Branch >,)
Idoc"eted as S0 Civil Case 3o' N-FK
*ct >+) +--.' R:C issued :emporary Restraining *rder
direction Committee to stop from proceeding with inquiry and
sending subpoenas to witnesses from Region J() speci9cally
&enSan'
3ov A) +--.' :he Committee 9led motion to dismiss the
petition'
- &rounds:
aH lac" of jurisdiction
bH failure to state valid cause of action'
2rgued that :emporary Restraining *rderO invalid)
violated the rule against eP5parte issuance thereof) and it
was unenforceable beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the
court'
3ov ++) +--.' R:C denied petition and granted writ or
preliminary injunction'
WRIT of PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: a court
order that commands or prohibits an act that the
court regards as essential to justice' 0urpose Q
prevent dissolution of plainti7s rights) see" to
prevent threatened wrong) further injury and
irreparable harm and injustice'
0hil' Star published a commentary regarding the action made
by the /udge on this case'
ISSUES
a' 6hether or not there was grave abuse of discretion by
/udge
- when he dismissed motion to dismiss the petition for
prohibition) and issued a writ of preliminary
injunction'
b' bH 6hether or not /udge erred in convicting Sen' 0imentel
of indirect Contempt of Court
HELD
:here is grave abuse of discretion as when the assailed
order is bereft from legal justi9cation' 3o legal basis for
issuing the resolution'
Sen' 0imentel is not guilty of indirect contempt of court'
RATIO
2' :here was no legal basis for the issuance of the resolution by
the /udge'
a' 0rinciples of Separation of 0owers
Congress 555 legislation
1Pecutive 555 ePecution
/udicial 555 settlement of legal controversies
6hen Committee served subpoena) it acted in pursuant to
its authority to conduct inquiries in aid for legislation' G2rt
E() Sec >+) ConstiH
b' Respondent cited Beng$on v' Blue Ribbon
Preliminary injunction may be issued in cases pending before
administrative bodies such as the
Ombudsman or Ofice of the Persecutor as long as the right to
self-incrimination guaranteed by
the Bill of Rights is in danger.
- Beng$on does not apply in this case'
- :his case 3* intended legislation involved8 *7shoot of a
speech by Senator 1nrile'
- Clear legislative purpose indicated in SR3 +F4'
- Subject matter of inquiry was more within the province of
the courts than the legislative'
- Subpoena was served pursuant to its authority to conduct
inquiries in aid for legislation' G2rt E() Sec >+)
- ConstiH
- (ssue has already been preempted before Committee came
in'
- Still pending with *7ice of *mbudsman'
- :herefore) no court has acquired jurisdiction'
B' Sen' 0imentel was not guilty of indirect contempt of court' :he
reasons for conviction were as follows:
a' Causing the publication in 0hil Star though it was sub
judice'
i. Sen' 0imentel contends that he had no participation
in the publication'
ii. pursuant to press freedom' relevant to matters of
public interest'#
b' Ca"ing derogatory remar"s' :he derogatory statement was
that he showed gross ignorance of rules of law and
procedure'# not improper conduct' <oes not impede)
obstruct or degrade the administration of justice'
3ecessary description to support a petition see"ing the
annulment of the order of the /udge'
!pouses Bacar v. "udge #e $u%man "r.
&hen la' is so elementary( not to )no' it or to act as if a
judge does not )no' it constitutes gross
ignorance of the la'.
- Sen' 0imentel did not malign the trial court) rather
ePpressed the violation of the basic principles of separation
of powers'
- 3a$areno v' Barnes:purpose of court to punish for
contempt: should not be personal'
c' Dor ma"ing it appear than an admin case was 9led against
/udge for gross ignorance of law
- 6ithout legal basis' 3o complaint was instituted separate
from petition for certiorari'
Stan#a(# C)a(te# Ban* +)il v Senate
[G.R. No. 167173; ,e&embe( 27! 2007"
0etition for 0rohibition
- 6ith prayer for issuance of :emporary Restraining *rder
and/or (njunction
- <ated and 9led Car ++) >44A'
- 0urpose: to enjoin respondents from
+' proceeding with its inquiry pursuant to 0hil Senate G0SH 3o' +FF
>' compelling petitioners Go7icers of SCB50hilsH to attend and justify
before any hearing to be conducted by respondents particularly
set on Car +A) >44A' enforcing any Mold <eparture *rder GM<*H
and/or putting petitioner on 6atch %ist
2lso prays for:
,' annulment of SLB0*132 2< :1S:(D(C23<LC and <LC1S
:1CLC issued to 0'
SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM: 2 process to cause a
witness to appear and give testimony) under conditions therein
mentioned'
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM: a command to produce
documents
FACTS
+' Deb + >44A' Senator /uan 0once 1nrile GEC of RH delivered a
privilege speech O 2rrogance of 6ealth'
- Based on a letter from 2tty' Car" Bacobo denouncing SCB
0hils for selling unregistered securities in violation of the
Securities Regulation Code GR2 .B--H
- 2ccording to letter) 0 is reported to have a sale of
unregistered and high5ris" securities by Standard
Chartered Ban" which resulted in billions of losses to the
investing public
- Lrging the Senate to immediately conduct an inquiry) aid in
legislation) to prevent the occurrence of a similar
fraudulent activity in the future'
>' Sen' Drancis 0angilinan motioned the speech to be referred to
R' 0S Resolution was earler been introduced by Sen' 1nrile'
,' R invited petitioners and other resource persons to attend
hearing' *n Deb >.) >44A when the investigation was
commenced) Senator 1nrile moved that subpoena be issued to
those who did not attend and requested <ept of /ustice to issue
an M<* against them or include them in the 6atch %ist'
N' 0 were later served SLB0*132 2< :1S:(D(C23<LC and
<LC1S :1CLC to compel them to attend the nePt set hearing)
thus they 9led this petition'
A' :he issues raised against SCB 0hils regarding the selling of
unregistered foreign documents are already foreign securities'
0rimary: <id the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee have jurisdiction
over the case at barR
HELD
0etition for 0rohibition 5<13(1<) lac" of merit'
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee has jurisdiction over the matter'
RATIO
2' Beng$on /r v Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Q does not apply
in this case'
- 5:he similarity of Beng$on /r and of this case is only until
the presence of cases already pending in various courts and
admin bodies regarding the matter to be investigated'
- 5Beng$on /r) was not in aid of legislation' :he speech
therein contained no contemplated legislation
- *n the other hand) this case is ePplicit on the nature of the
inquiry) as stated in last , 6M1R12S clauses in 0'S'
Re-olution No 166.
a' ePisiting laws including the Securities Regulation Code
seem to be inadequate
c' the regulatory intervention by the S1C and BS0 li"ewise
appear to be inadequate'
d' there is a need for remedial legislation to address the issue'
- Conclusion of 1nriles privilege speech: conduct an inquiry)
in aid of legislation'
B' landmar" case 2mault v' 3a$areno
- 5the power of inquiry is an essential and appropriate
auPiliary to the legislative function'
- 50 cannot claim to have been singled out by R before there
are other resource persons invited to help them in the case'
- 5purpose of the investigation: quest for remedies) to
prevent recurrence
- independent of the judiciary) it can assest its authority and
punish non5compliance'
C' Right of privacy 555not absolute right' GSec >+) 2R: E( of ConstiH
!abio v $ordon( Right to privacy is not absolute 'here there is
an overriding compelling state interest.