Sabio Vs Gordon

SABIO vs GORDON
Facts:
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago introduced Senate Res. 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.”
Pursuant to this, on May 8, 2006, Senator Richard Gordon, wrote Chairman Camilo
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.
Chairman Sabio declined the invitation because of prior commitment. At the same
time, he invoked Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 “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.”
After repeated notices by the Senate Commission, Sabio still refused to comply and
pointed out that the anomalous transactions referred to in the P.S. Resolution No.
455 are subject of pending cases before the regular courts, the Sandiganbayan and
the Supreme Court.
An order was issued by the Senate Commission to place Chairman Sabio and his
Commissioners under arrest for contempt of the Senate. After his arrest, Sabio filed
a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Petition for Certiorari against the Senate
committees alleging among others that the subpoenae violated petitioners' rights to
privacy and against self-incrimination.
Issue: Whether of not petitioners’ right to privacy were violated by the subpoena?
Ruling:
Before such issue can be settled, the constitutionality of EO no. 1 must first be
established.
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. T
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."
Section 4(b) also runs counter to the following constitutional provisions ensuring
the people's access to information:
Article II, Section 28
Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts

and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions
involving public interest.
Article III, Section 7
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern

shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and
papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as
to government research data used as basis for policy development,
shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law.
These articles seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in the operations

of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to enable
them to exercise effectively their constitutional rights.
In evaluating a claim for violation of the right to privacy, a court must determine
whether a person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so,
whether that expectation has been violated by unreasonable government intrusion.
Applying this determination to these cases, the important inquiries are: first, did the
directors and officers of Philcomsat Holdings Corporation exhibit a reasonable
expectation of privacy?; and second,did the government violate such expectation?
The inquiry focus on petitioners' acts committed in the discharge of their duties as
officers and directors of the said corporations, particularly Philcomsat Holdings
Corporation. Consequently, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy
over matters involving their offices in a corporation where the government
has interest. Certainly, such matters are of public concern and over which the
people have the right to information. The right to privacy is not absolute where
there is an overriding compelling state interest.
In Valmonte v. Belmonte, the Court remarked that as public figures, the Members of

the former Batasang Pambansa enjoy a more limited right to privacy as compared
to ordinary individuals, and their actions are subject to closer scrutiny. Taking this
into consideration, the Court ruled that the right of the people to access information
on matters of public concern prevails over the right to privacy of financial
transactions.
Under the present circumstances, the alleged anomalies in the PHILCOMSAT, PHC
and POTC, ranging in millions of pesos, and the conspiratorial participation of the
PCGG and its officials are compelling reasons for the Senate to exact vital
information from the directors and officers of Philcomsat Holdings Corporations, as
well as from Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners to aid it in crafting the
necessary legislation to prevent corruption and formulate remedial measures and
policy determination regarding PCGG's efficacy. There being no reasonable
expectation of privacy on the part of those directors and officers over the subject
covered by Senate Res. No. 455, it follows that their right to privacy has not been
violated by respondent Senate Committees.

Sabio Vs Gordon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sabio Vs Gordon

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 GORDON

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago introduced Senate Res. No. 455 “directing an

Article II, Section 28

Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts

Article III, Section 7

The right of the people to information on matters of public concern

These articles seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in the operations

In Valmonte v. Belmonte, the Court remarked that as public figures, the Members of

You might also like