ARNAULT V.

NAZARENO

• This is a petition for habeas corpus to relieve Arnault from confinement at Bilibid
• He was confined by Senate for his refusal to name the person to whom he gave
P440,000, and to answer some questions.
• The Philippine Government bought 2 estates (BUENAVISTA & TAMBOBONG) worth
P5M total.
• P1Mwas paid to Burt thru atty-in-fact Arnault, P500K also paid to Burt, thru Arnault
(total P1.5M)
• However, the Original owner of the Estate was San Juan De Dios Hospital under a
contract with the government for 25 years lease.
• SJDDH sold it to Burt but Burt paid only the P10K down payment.
• However the estates could have been bought for only P3M, and the Tambobong
Estate should have been free, because it was practically owned by the gov’t!
(when the installments were not paid, it was sold to Rural Progress Admin.
• SENATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION # 8 creating a special committee to investigate
the estate deals.
• Among the witnesses examined was Arnault – why did gov’t have to pay P1.5M to
Burt when his interest was only P20K, which was forfeited anyway?
• Arnault testified that he received the checks and opened an account in the name
of his principal Burt to deposit the P1.5M. He later withdrew them P500K for Assoc
Agencies, and P440K payable to cash.
• THIS P440K was the subject of investigation, to determine who the ultimate
recipient was.
• Arnault stated that he gave the P440K to some person, but whose NAME HE CAN’T
REMEMBER.
• Because of his persistent refusal to name the recipient, the Senate cited Arnault
for CONTEMPT and thus he was confined
• Arnault however claims that the questions asked of him were incriminatory.
• He contends that the Senate has no power to punish him for contempt for refusing
to reveal the name of the beneficiary, because such information is immaterial and
will not serve any intended or purported legislation, and that his refusal to answer
does not obstruct the legislative process.

ISSUE:
Whether the Senate has the power to cite Arnault for contempt?

SC:
Yes. Once inquiry admitted or established to be within the jurisdiction of a legislative
body to make, then the investigating committee has the POWER TO REQUIRE A
WITNESS to answer any question pertinent to that inquiry, subject to the consti right
against self-incrimination.

Howevre, the question must be MATERIAL OR PERTINENT O THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY

OR INVESTIGATION. The test of materiality is: direct relation to the subject matter of
inquiry and not by indirect relation to any proposed or possible legislation.
RATIONALE: necessity of legislative action determined by the information gathered as
a whole.

The power of inquiry is an ESSENTIAL AND APPROPRIATE AUXILIARY to the legislative

function. Legislature cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of
information about the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change.

When legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information, recourse must
be had to others who do possess it. So the means of COMPULSION is essential to
obtain what is needed.

The fact that the Consti expressly gives Congress the power to punish members, does
not necessarily imply exclusion of the power to punish non-members for contempt.

But note that, no person can be punished for contumacy as a witness, unless
testimony required in a matter over which Congress had jurisdiction to inquire.

Further, the Court has NO POWER TO INTERFERE WITH LEGISLATIVE ACTION. It has no
power to determine what to approve or not to approve, the court cannot say what
information is material to the subject matter of inquiry. It is not within the Court’s
power to determine what legislative measures Congress may take after completion of
legislative inquiry.

Senate is also a continuing body; NO TIME LIMIT AS TO ITS POWER TO PUNISH FOR
CONTEMPT