17/09/2024
For educational purpose only.
*********
SUGGESTED ANSWER in Question No. 1.
Read the case of
LINCONN UY ONG, vs. BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE, et al.
G.R. No. 257401, March 28, 2023
The Supreme Court held, thus:
"Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides:
'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.'
The Senate, or the Congress as a whole, may effectively and wisely legislate for as long as it may compel the availability of information which in turn will be basis of a proposed law emanating from the proceedings in aid of legislation. The Congress is not precluded from causing the appearance of a resource person who is not before it. As long as the testimony of a resource person is primordial in the Legislature's inquiry in aid of legislation, then any House of Congress or its committees may compel, by way of an arrest, his or her appearance in the inquiry proceedings. Necessarily, compelled testimony connotes truthful declaration by a resource person subject of the legislative inquiry.
Limitations on the Powers of Legislative Investigation and Contempt
As provided in Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, however, the power of legislative investigation is subject to three limitations:
(1) the inquiry must be "in aid of legislation;"
(2) the inquiry must be conducted in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure; and
(3) "[t]he rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected."92 Also, where there is factual basis for the contempt, the resource person's detention should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry.93
First Limitation: The subject hearings were conducted in aid of legislation. ###
Second Limitation: The assailed rules are compliant with the publication requirement of Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. ###
Third Limitation: "[t]he rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
As stated earlier, while the Committee satisfied the first and second constitutional limitations of its power to conduct the subject inquiry in aid of legislation, it failed to accord petitioners their rights in the conduct of its proceedings, more in the exercise of its contempt power. These rights refer to no other than those enshrined under the Bill of Rights, more particularly to the right to due process ###.
SEC. 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, provides:
SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
### Again, the Committee [im]mediately surmised on the incredulity of his testimony, thus citing him in contempt and ordering his arrest on the ground that he gave inconsistent or incomplete answers.
It bears underscoring that the purpose of the Committee's proceedings is to conduct an inquiry or investigation to aid the Senate in crafting relevant legislation, and not to conduct a trial or make an adjudication. Legislative inquiries do not share the same goals as the criminal trial process,137 and "cannot be punitive in the sense that they cannot result in legally binding deprivation of a person's life, liberty or property." Thus, punishment for legislative contempt, albeit sui generis in character, must similarly observe the minimum requirements of due process.
As succinctly pointed out by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, witnesses who are charged by Congress with "giving false or evasive testimony" must be accorded stricter due process requirements, such as the opportunity to explain one's side before being penalized, consistent with the due process safeguards used in criminal proceedings. Considering the broad definition of "giving false or evasive testimony," the witness must, at the very least, given a chance to explain why his or her testimony is not false or evasive.139
In the case, the Committee's grave abuse of discretion lay in its precipitate act of citing petitioners Ong and Yang in contempt and ordering their arrests without giving them the opportunity to be heard."
Footnotes
92 Bernas S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2003 Ed., p. 737.
93 Balag v. Senate of the Philippines, supra note 68 at 475
137 See Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga in Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, supra note 80 at 687 (2008).
138 See Concurring Opinion of Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo pp. 14-16.
-CTTO: Philippine Jurisprudence Official-
