You are on page 1of 2

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF WIRT OF HABEAS CORPUS OF CAMILO SABIO vs. HON.

SENATOR RICHARD GORDON, et al. 17 October 2006, Sandoval-Gutierez, J. (En Banc) PCGG Chair Camilo Sabio and commissioners were arrested for contempt and detained in the Senate premises for their refusal to appear in the public hearing regarding the inquiry on the anomalous losses due to impropriety in the Board of Phil Overseas Telecomm Corp, PhilComSat and PhilComSat holdings. (Senate Resolution 455 introduced by Miriam Santiago directing inquiry in aid of legislation on said matter) Sabio filed petition for habeas corpus; together with other commissioners petition for certiorari and prohibition, alleging that the investigating committee: 1. Disregarded EO 1 Sec. 4(b) [no member of the commission shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial, legislative, administrative proceedings concerning matters within its official cognizance] without justifiable reason 2. Inquiries were conducted without duly published Senate Rules of Procedure Governing inquiries in aid of legislation 3. No jurisdiction, controversies are justiciable over which courts have already acquired jurisdiction 4. Gordon has no authority to issue subpoena 5. Subpoena violated their right to privacy and against self-incrimination 6. Senate has no contempt power Repondents answer: 1. Issues are political 2. EO 1 Sec 4(b) is repealed by the Constitution Court: Petition dismissed 1. EO1 Sec 4(b) has been repealed by Constitution because it is inconsistent with the constitutional provisions on the Congress power of inquiry (art 6 21), the principle of public accountability (art. 11 1), the policy of full disclosure (art 2, 28) and right of access to information (art. 3 7). 2. The investigating committees are vested with contempt power. Art. 6 21 recognizes the power of investigation, not just of Congress, but any of its committees. This is a direct conferral of investigatory power upon the committees and the mechanisms to effectively perform that function, like the power of contempt. 3. No violation of right to privacy. The inquiry focuses on the acts committed by the PHC officers and directors in the discharge of their duties; right against self-incrimination may be invoked only when the incriminating question is being asked.

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK vs. SENATE 12 December 2007 Petitioner: Executive officers of SCB (English Bank) Respondent: Senate Committee on Banks, Financial Institutions and Currencies represented by Edgardo Angara Angara invited petitioners to attend senate hearing in aid of legislation regarding the alleged selling of unregistered foreign securities by SCB, in violation of RA 8799. (The issue was referred to the Sen. Committee by Sen. Pangilinan, following Enriles privilege speech on the matter, Senate Res. 166.) Petitioners submitted their position paper. Enrile moved to subpoena those who did not attend the hearing and to request the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation to issue an HDO against them or include them in the watch list. SCB petitioned for prohibition with prayer for TRO and/ injunction to enjoin respondents from: 1. Proceeding with the inquiry (cases are pending in the court on the matter, issue on jurisdiction) 2. Compelling them to attend and testify 3. Enforcing HDO/putting them on watch list 4. Annulment of subpoena ad testificandum (to testify), duces tecum (to produce evidence) Ruling: 1. The mere filing of criminal/ administrative complaint before a court or a quasi judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation. Objective is: to immediately conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation, so as to prevent the occurrence of a similar activity in the future. 2. Contempt power of congress is implied or incidental to the exercise of legislative power to investigate. Legislative investigation includes the power to compel the attendance of witness 3. HDO/ watchlist: its reasonable since petitioners are not Filipino who may easily evade the summons. No HDO was issued but the bureau included them in the watch list, which merely delays their intended travel abroad for 5 days, provided no HDO is issued.