Arnault v.

Nazareno

Facts: Arnault was arraigned for contempt by the Senate during a legislative inquiry
regarding a scam (Buenavista and Tambobong estates, Resolution No. 8 created a
special committee to investigate on the matter). He did not answer the question
regarding the receiver of the missing government fund

ISSUE: WON Congress may punish a non-member for contempt

Important Constitutional Provision:
Article VI, Section 16
(3) Each may determine
- the rules of its proceedings,
- punish its members for disorderly behavior, and
- suspend or expel a member, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its
Members
A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS/ DOCTRINES
- Legislative power is vested in the Congress
- Each house may determine rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for
disorderly behavior and with the concurrence of two-thirds of all of its Member,
expel a Member
- NO express provision in the Constitution regarding punishment for non-
members
- POWER OF INQUIRY
an essential and appropriate auxiliary to legislative function.
A body cannot legislate wisely or effectively on the absence of information respecting
the conditions which the legislation is intended to effect or change
where the information is not possessed by the legislature itself, recourse must be
made to obtain it from those who possess it. Often times, such information is unavailing
and also if the information is volunteered, it is usually not reliable or not exactly truthful
some means of compulsion is needed to obtain information
Although there is no express provision regarding discipline of non-members, it does
not mean that Congress is not allowed to such thing.

RULE: Congress may discipline not only its own members but also nonmembers through
contempt
CAVEAT: The Congress can punish a witness for contumacy only if the testimony is
required in a matter into which that House has jurisdiction to inquire.

Difficult to define limits by which the subject matter of inquiry can be bounded.
Inquiry has to be within the jurisdiction of the Congress. Once jurisdiction is proven, the
Congress can ask questions pertinent to the subject matter at hand.
To be within the Congresss jurisdiction, the inquiry must be
1. material or necessary to the exercise of a power in it vested by the
Constitution such as power to legislate, to expel a Member, protection of the
public treasury (power/ duty exercised in this case)
2. every question must be material or pertinent to the subject of the inquiry or
investigation
Materiality of question must be material or pertinent to the subject of the inquiry or
investigation. It does NOT follow that every question that may be propounded to a
witness must be material to any proposed or possible legislation.
WHY? Necessity or lack of necessity for legislation is determined by the sum total of
information to be gathered as a result of the investigation and not by a fraction of such
information elicited from a single question.

Power of court is limited to determining whether the legislative body has jurisdiction to
institute inquiry of investigation
Materiality of question is determined by the Senate itself. (Principle of separation of
powers) But this does not mean that the Court may not inquire if the body committed a
grave abuse of discretion regarding such power.

If a question is NOT pertinent a witness may refuse to answer.

WON Senate lack authority to commit a person for contempt for a term beyond its
period of legislative reason

- The Senate is a continuing body whose members are elected for a term of 6 years
and so divided that the seats of only 1/3 become vacant every two years. It does not
cease to exist upon the periodical dissolution of the Congress or the House of
Representatives.

- Legislative functions may be and in practice are performed during recess by duly
constituted committees charged with the duty of performing investigations or
conducting hearings relative to any proposed legislation.

Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

Facts: Respondent Senate Blue Ribbon Committee conducted an inquiry into the alleged
sale of the equity of Benjamin Romualdez to the Lopa Group in 36 or 39 corporations.
These corporations were part of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses and cronies. The
sale was made without PCGG approval.

IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL PPROVISION:
Article VI, Section 21. The Senate or 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.

Issues/ Held:
1. WON the Court has jurisdiction to properly inquire into the motives of the
lawmakers in conducting legislative investigations, much less can it enjoin the
Congress or any of its regular and special committees
YES.
Although there exists a separation of governmental powers, the Court has the
power of judicial review.
The judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to
determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and
among the integral or constituent units thereof.
Allocation of constitutional boundaries task that the Court shall perform under the
Constitution.

2. WON the Senate Blue Ribbons inquiry is valid on grounds that it has a valid
legislative purpose

Power to conduct inquiries is NOT absolute. According to Article VI, Section 21, the
following are the limits to legislative inquiry:
a. must be in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure
b. the rights of the persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be
respected

In order to ascertain the character or nature of an inquiry, resort must be has to the
speech or resolution under which such an inquiry is proposed to be made.

In the case at bar, the Court looked into the speech of Enrile.

Findings: the speech of Senator Enrile did not contain any suggestion of contemplated
legislation. He merely called upon the senate to look into a possible violation of Sec. 5 of
RA No. 3019, The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Thus, there is no intended
legislation involved.
Such matter is appears to be more within the province of the courts rather than the
legislature.

DOCTRINE:
Power of inquiry is LIMITED. Nor is the Congress a law enforcement of trial agency.
There are functions of the executive and judicial departments of government. No
inquiry is an end itself. It must be related to and in furtherance of a legitimate task of
Congress.

Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita

Facts:
Three petitions challenging the constitutionality of EO 464
The Senate invited several officials of the Executive Department to appear as
resource speakers in a public hearing regarding the following:
- North Railway Project
-
President Gloria Arroyo issued EO 464 entitled Ensuring Observance of the
Principle of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the Rule of Executive Privilege and
Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of
Legislation under the Constitution and for other Purposes

Sec. 1- Appearance by Heads of Departments Before Congress: all heads of
departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure the consent of
the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress

Sec 2- Nature, scope and coverage of executive privilege
(a) enumeration of all confidential or classified information between the President
and the public officers covered by this executive order
(b) Who are covered

Sec 3.- Appearance of Other Public Officials before Congress- All public officials
enumerated in Sec. 2 (b) hereof shall secure prior consent of the President prior to
appearing before either House of Congress

IMPORTANT PROVISION:
Article VI, Sec. 22
The heads of the department may upon their own initiative, with the consent of the
President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall
provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their
department.
Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of
the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance.
Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters
related thereto.
When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so
states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session.

ISSUES/ HELD / RATIO:
1. WON EO464 contravenes the power of inquiry vested in Congress
2. WON EO 464 violates the right of people to information on matters of public
concern
3. WON committed grave abuse of discretion when they EO 464 was implemented
without prior publication in OG or newspaper of gen application

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF EO 464
Aurnalt: The power of inquiry is inherent in the power to legislate. It is an essential and
appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.
Power of inquirygrounded on the necessity of the information in the legislative
process
Exemption to power of inquiry: executive privilege

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
- American origin
- Power of the government to withhold information from the public, the courts
and the Congress
- Right of the president and high-level executive branch officers to withhold
information from Congress, the courts, ultimately public
- Kinds
1. state secrets privilege- crucial for military or diplomatic objectives
2. informers privilege- identity of persons who furnish information of
law to officers charged with the enforcement of laws
3. generic privilege- internal deliberations comprising part of process by
which governmental decisions and policies are formulated
Does not mean that once privileged, it will always be privileged. It would also depend on
the procedural setting.

Jurisprudence on executive privilege:
- Almonte v. Vasquez
o A president and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives
in the process of shaping policies and making decisions . The privilege is
fundamental to the operation of government inextricably rooted in the
separation of powers under the Constitution.
PRINCIPLE:
Executive privilege is recognized only in relation to certain types of information of a
sensitive character.
Claim may be valid or not depending on the ground invoked to justify it and the context
in which it is made.
An executive privilege is of extraordinary character because it is exempted from duty to
disclose information by public officials.
Presumption inclines heavily against executive secrecy and in favor of disclosure.

Validity of Sec. 1 of EO 464
Sec. 1- Appearance by Heads of Departments Before Congress: all heads of
departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure the consent of
the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress
- Yes. It is valid because the required prior consent is grounded on Article VI, Sec.
22 of the Constitution. The provision pertains to question hour.
- Sec. 1 is valid because it is only limited in its application only to appearances of
department heads in the question hour. This does not apply in legislative
inquiries.

Provision Subject Aim Attendance
Article VI, Sec. 21 Legislative Inquiry Elicit information
that would aid in
legislation
Mandatory
Article VI, Sec. 22 Question Hour Obtain
information in
pursuit of
Congress
oversight
function
Discretionary
- Congress may only
request appearance
- with the consent of
the President

Principle of Separation of Powers
Caveat: While the executive branch is a co-equal branch of the legislature, it cannot
frustrate the power of Congress to legislate by refusing to comply with its demands for
information

The only way for officials of the executive department to be exempted is to have a valid
claim of privilege
Who have absolute privilege?
1. president
2. justices of the supreme court

VALIDITY OF SECTIONS 2 AND 3
Sec 2- Nature, scope and coverage of executive privilege
(a) enumeration of all confidential or classified information between the
President and the public officers covered by this executive order
(b) Who are covered

Sec 3.- Appearance of Other Public Officials before Congress- All public officials
enumerated in Sec. 2 (b) hereof shall secure prior consent of the President prior to
appearing before either House of Congress

MISUSE OF THE DOCTRINE. Executive privilege must be based on the categories of
information and NOT to categories of persons.
Securing of consent of the President prior to appearing before Congress effectively
bars the appearance of the official unless consented by the President. The
determination the becomes the basis for the officials not showing up in the legislative
investigation. There is an IMPLIED CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE
What is wrong with these provisions?
- implied claim authorized by Sec. 3 of EO464 is NOT accompanied by any specific
allegation of the basis thereof
- Congress has the right to know why the executive considers the requested
information privileged.
- A claim of privilege must be clearly asserted
- There must be a formal claim of privilege
- Privilege cannot be set up by an unsupported claim. The facts upon which
privilege is based must be established.
- Allow the president to authorize claims of privilege by mere silence.
- Contrary to the exceptional nature of the privilege
o Doctrine of executive privilege is premised on the fact that such
information is not disclosed as a matter of necessity. Such necessity must
be of high degree as to outweigh the public interest in eforcing that
obligation in a particular case.

Dispositive: Sec. 1 of EO 464 is valid while Sections 2(b) and 3 are void.

Romero v. Estrada
Facts:
Assailing the constitutionality of the invitation issued by the Senate Committee on
Labor, Employment, and Human Resources Development in connection with the
investment of OWWA funds in the Smokey Mountain Project

The petitioner, Romero is the owner of R-II Builders. The petitioners claim that the
subject matter is sub judice owing to the pending Chavez v. National Housing Authority.

HELD: DISMISS

Sub judice rule- restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial proceedings to
avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court or obstructing the administration of
justice
Rationale: Decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from every extraneous
influence, that facts should be decided upon evidence produced in court, and that the
determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.

In the case at bar, the petition was dismissed because the Chaves case was denied with
the finaliy by an en banc Resolution. Thus the sub judice case is now moot and
academic.

Hypothetically, if the case has not been mooted, the pending case would still not bar the
continuance of the committee investigation.
Sabio v. Gordon: the filing or pendency of any prosecution or administrative action
should not stop or abate any inquiry to carry out a legislative purpose
Court proceedings Legislative proceedings
- adjudicative procedures to settle,
through the application of a law, actual
controversies arising between adverse
litigants and involving demandable rights.
Tools to enable the legislative body to
gather information and thus, legislate
wisely and effectively

The two things are different. Therefore, on going judicial proceedings do not preclude
congressional hearings in and of legislation.