Bengzon vs.

Senate Blue Ribbon Committee (SBRC)

Nov. 20, 1990
Padilla, J

Nature: Petition for prohibition and temporary restraining order and/or injunctive relief to enjoin the
respondent SBRC from requiring the petitioners to testify and produce evidence at its inquiry into the
alleged sale of the equity of Benjamin ‘Kokoy’ Romualdez to the Lopa Group in 36 or 39 corporations

Facts:

 After the fall of the Marcos Regime, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG)
was after though who allegedly illegally enriched themselves during previous administration.
One of them was Kokoy Romualdez who:
- in unlawful concert with the Marcoses, obtained control of some of the biggest enterprises
like MERALCO, Benguet Mining Corporation, Pilipinas Shell, and PCI Bank
- with the assistance of the petitioner’s law firm and other Philguarantee officials led by
chairman Cesar Virataexecuted schemes and devices to conceal such
funs/shares/properties from the PCGG
- maneuvered the purported sale of BKR’s interest in various companies to PNI Holdings
which is controlled by his lawyers (petitioners et al)
Among the President's relatives, the most recent furor involved a brother-in-law, Ricardo Lopa, known by
his nickname as Baby. Mr. Lopa, a prominent businessman, is accused of cashing in on Mr. Marcos's
sequestered assets. Acquisition of Companies
Six days after the former President fled the country, Mr. Lopa spent just $250,000 to buy a controlling
interest in 36 companies belonging to Mr. Marcos's brother-in-law, Benjamin Romualdez. Mr. Lopa
defended his action by saying that the Marcos family had seized the companies from him after Mr.
Marcos came to power 20 years earlier. (Excerpt from The New York Times, Oct 17, 1988- for
background)
 Before the PCGG was able to determine if and where exactly the Romualdez ‘companies’
dissolved to, a daily reported that such companies were sold for Php 5M, without PCGG
approval to Ricardo Lopa, Cory Aquino’s brother-in-law. Sen Flavier delivered a privilege speech
re this and called the Senate to look into possible violation of RA 3019: Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Acts
 Lopa and Bengzon were summoned by the SBRC but both refused to testify invoking
constitutional right to due process
 Bengzon and colleagues contested on grounds of the BRC’s
- excess of its jurisdiction and legislative purpose
- clear and blatant disregard of their constitutional rights
-
ISSUES:
1. WON Court has jurisdiction (preliminary)
 - Yes
- Angara vs Electoral Commission: allocation of Constitutional Boundaries
- Art. VIII, Sec. I

2. WON SBRC inquiry on issue could be granted

- No. Power of the Congress to do legislative inquiry is not absolute. (Art VI, Sec 21.) It has to
be in aid of legislation and in accordance with the duly published Rules of Procedure (Sec. 1.
Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation)
- Sen. Enrile’s speech was not for purposes of legislation. It merely asked the Senate to look
into a possible violation of Sec. 5 of RA No. 3019, otherwise known as “The Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.”

- Congress is not a law enforcement or trial agency (Watkins vs United States)

- A Civil Case (00-35) had already been filed before the Sandiganbayan on the Same issue,
SBRA’s pursuance of this may lead to possibility of conflicting judgments and undue
influence

- No. Because Art. III, Sec. 17: right against self-incrimination

Right to remain completely silent (Chavez vs CA)
The right of witnesses to invoke right against self-incrimination not only in criminal
proceedings but in all other types of case suits since they are not the accused (Cabal vs
Kapunan)

FALLO:
Granted.

Dissent:
1. Gutierrez:
The Court is asserting a power which I believe we do not possess. We are encroaching on the turf of
Congress. We are prohibiting the Senate from proceeding with a consitutionally vested function. We are
stopping the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee from exercising a legislative prerogative — investigations in
aid of legislation.
The Court has no power to second guess the motives behind an act of a House of Congress.

What the majority opinion mandates is a blanket prohibition against a witness testifying at all, simply
because he is already facing charges before the Sandiganbayan.

In Arnault, the entire country already knew the name of the presidential realtive whom the Sentate was
trying to link to the Tambobong-Buenavista estate anomalies. Still, the Court did not interfere when
Arnault refused to answer specific questions directed at him and he was punished for hir refusal. The
Court did not restrain the Senate when Arnault was sent o the national penitentiary for an indefinite
visit until the name which the Senate wanted him to utter was extracted. Only when the imprisonment
became ureasonably prolonged and the situation in Congress had changed was he released..

I agree with the respondents that the slae of 39 Romualdez corporations to Mr. Lopa is not a purely
private transaction into which the Senate may not inquire. if this were so, much of the work of the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) as it seeks to recover illegally acquired wealth
would be negated. Much of what PCGG is trying to recover is the product of arrangements which are not
only private but also secret and hidden.

2. Cruz:

I regret I am unable to give my concurrence, I do not agree that the investigation being conducted by
the Blue Ribbon Committee is not in aid of legislation.

In Arnault v. Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29, this Court observed that "we are bound to presume that the action
of the legislative body was with a legitimate object if it is capable of being so construed, and we have no
right to assume that the contrary was intended.