Sabio Vs Gordon

Sabio vs.
Gordon
FACTS:
On February 20, 2006, Sen. M. Defensor-Santiago introduced
Philippine Senate Resolution No. 455 "directing an inquiry in aid of legislation
on the anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines Overseas
Telecommunications Corporation(POTC), Philippine Communications
Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), and PHILCOMSAT Holdings
Corporation (PHC) due to the alleged improprieties in their operations by
their respective Board of Directors. Said Resolution was referred to the
Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations and
Committee on Public Services. It was then transferred to the Committee on
Government Corporations and Public Enterprises upon motion of
Sen.F.Pangilinan.
On May 8, 2006, Chief of Staff Rio C. Inocencio, under the authority
of Senator R.Gordon, wrote Chairman Camilo L. Sabio of the PCGG, inviting
him to be one of the resource persons in the public meeting jointly conducted
by the Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises and
Committee on Public Services for the deliberation of the Senate Resolution.
On May 9, 2006, Sabio declined the invitation because of prior commitment.
At the same time, he invoked Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 that No member or
staff of the Commission shall be required to testify or produce evidence in
any judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding concerning matters
within its official cognizance.
Sen. Gordon issued a Subpoena Ad Testificandum requiring Sabio
and PCGG Commissioners Ricardo Abcede, Nicasio Conti, Tereso Javier
and Narciso Nario to appear in the public hearing and testify on what they
know relative to the matters specified in Senate Resolution. Similar
subpoena were issued against the directors and officers of Philcomsat
Holdings. Again, Chairman Sabio refused to appear. He sent a letter to Sen.
Gordon invoking Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1. On the other hand, the directors
of Philcomstat Holdings raised the issues on the proper legislative inquiry.
Another notice was sent to Sabio requiring him to appear and testify on the
same subject matter but the same did not comply. Sabio again sent a letter
reiterating his position. This prompted Senator Gordon to issue an Order
requiring Chairman Sabio and Commissioners Abcede, Conti, Javier and
Nario to show cause why they should not be cited in contempt of the Senate.
Unconvinced with the Compliance and Explanation, the Committee
on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises and the Committee on
Public Services issued an Order directing Major General Jose Balajadia
(Ret.), Senate Sergeant-At-Arms, to place Chairman Sabio and his

Commissioners under arrest for contempt of the Senate. Sabio was arrested.
Hence, he filed with the Supreme Court a petition for habeas corpus against
the Senate Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises
and Committee on Public Services, their Chairmen, Senators Richard
Gordon and Joker P. Arroyo and Members. He together with Commissioners
Abcede, Conti, Nario, and Javier, and the PCGG's nominees to Philcomsat
Holdings Corporation, Manuel Andal and Julio Jalandoni filed a petition for
certiorari and prohibition against the same respondents, and also against
Senate President Manuel Villar, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, the Sergeant-atArms, and the entire Senate. Meanwhile, Philcomsat Holdings Corporation
and its officers and directors, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
against the Senate Committees on Government Corporations and Public
Enterprises and Public Services, their Chairmen, Senators Gordon and
Arroyo, and Members. Sabio and the PCGG Commissioners alleged that:
1. Respondent Senate Committees disregarded Section 4(b) of E.O. No.1
without any justifiable reason;
2. The inquiries conducted by respondent Senate Committees are not in aid
of legislation;
3. The inquiries were conducted in the absence of duly published Senate
Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation; and
4. Respondent Senate Committees are not vested with the power of
contempt. Philcomsat Holdings Corporation and its directors and officers
alleged: 1.Respondent Senate Committees have no jurisdiction over the
subject matter stated in Senate Res. No. 455; 2.The same inquiry is not in
accordance with the Senate's Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid
of Legislation; 3. The subpoena against the individual petitioners are void for
having been issued without authority;4.The conduct of legislative inquiry
pursuant to Senate Res. No. 455 constitutes undue encroachment by
respondents into justiciable controversies over which several courts and
tribunals have already acquired jurisdiction; and5.The subpoena violated
petitioners' rights to privacy and against self-incrimination. In their Comment,
the respondents countered the petitioners arguments:
1. The issues raised in the petitions involve political questions over which SC
no jurisdiction2.Section 4(b) has been repealed by the Constitution;
3. Respondent Senate Committees are vested with contempt power;
4. Senates Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation have
been duly published;
5.Respondents have not violated any civil right of the individual petitioners,
such as their (a) right to privacy; and (b) right against self-incrimination; and
6. The inquiry does not constitute undue encroachment into justiciable
controversies.
ISSUES:
WON Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 constitutes a limitation on the power of
legislative inquiry, and a recognition by the State of the need to provide
protection to the PCGG in order to ensure the unhampered performance of
its duties under its charter.
HELD:
Petition for Habeas Corpus has become moot because Sabio was
allowed to go home. Perched on one arm of the scale of justice is Article VI,
Section 21 of the 1987Constitution granting respondent Senate Committees
the power of legislative inquiry. It reads: 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. On the other arm of the scale is Section 4(b) of E.O. No.1 limiting
such power of legislative inquiry by exempting all PCGG members or staff
from testifying in any judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding, thus:
No member or staff of the Commission shall be required to testify or
produce evidence in any judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding
concerning matters within its official cognizance. Arnault vs. Nazareno :
The power of inquiry with process to enforce it is an essential
and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. A legislative body cannot
legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the
conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where
the legislation body does not itself possess the requisite information which
is not infrequently true recourse must be had to others who possess it."
The Court's high regard to such power is rendered more evident in Senate v.
Ermita, where it categorically ruled that
The power of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of the

executive branch." Verily, the Court reinforced the doctrine in Arnault that "the
operation of government, being a legitimate subject for legislation, is a proper
subject for investigation" and that "the power of inquiry is co-extensive with
the power to legislate."
Considering these jurisprudential instructions, The Court finds
Section 4(b) directly repugnant with Article VI, Section 21. Section 4(b)
exempts the PCGG members and staff from the Congress' power of inquiry.
This cannot be countenanced. Nowhere in the Constitution is any provision
granting such exemption. The Congress' power of inquiry, being broad,
encompasses everything that concerns the administration of existing laws as
well as proposed or possibly needed statutes.
It even extends "to government agencies created by Congress and officers

whose positions are within the power of Congress to regulate or even
abolish." PCGG belongs to this class. Certainly, a mere provision of law
cannot pose a limitation to the broad power of Congress, in the absence of
any constitutional basis.
Furthermore, Section 4(b) is also inconsistent with Article XI, Section 1 of the
Constitution stating that: "Public office is a public trust. Public officers and
employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and
justice, and lead modest lives."
Issue: Whether or not legislative power of inquiry is superseded by EO No 1?
Decision: Petition for habeas corpus dismissed and EO No1 Section 4

(b) declared repealed by the Constitution. Either house may institute
any investigation having reference to its own organization, the conduct
or qualification of its members, its proceedings, rights or privileges or
any matter affecting public interest upon which it may be important that
it should have exact information and in respect to which it would be
competent for it to legislate.

Sabio Vs Gordon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sabio Vs Gordon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sabio Vs Gordon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sabio vs.

(Ret.), Senate Sergeant-At-Arms, to place Chairman Sabio and his

The power of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of the

It even extends "to government agencies created by Congress and officers

Decision: Petition for habeas corpus dismissed and EO No1 Section 4

You might also like