Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Manila
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This case concerns the much publicized incident in Moscow, Russia, involving
petitioner Gen. dela Paz, a former Comptroller of the PNP who, on his way home from a
conference, was temporarily held by Russian customs officials for failing to declare an
amount equivalent to 105,000 euros. Petitioners were held for violation of a local
customs law which limited the amount of cash that foreigners were allowed to bring
his group, were summoned to appear and testify at a hearing called by Mme. Senator
Miriam Defensor Santiago, in her capacity as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations
The day before the appointed hearing, however, petitioners learned about Rule X,
Section 13(12) of the Senate Rules which clearly spelled out the jurisdiction of its
Now realizing that the jurisdiction of the Committee was merely limited to
matters that involve state to state relations, and not ordinary infractions of local laws
committed by our citizens in foreign countries, petitioners sent counsel to the hearing to
dated 23 October 2008 and excused themselves from attending the hearing. Petitioners,
however, pledged to attend any other Senate inquiry as long as it is conducted by the
appropriate committee.
As newspaper and television accounts would have it, and also the Transcript of
Stenographic Notes would show1 Santiago blew her top and summarily dismissed
petitioners’ Challenge. Thus, in grave abuse of discretion, Sen. Santiago insisted on her
committee’s jurisdiction to hear the case and proceeded to hurl baseless accusations and
insults not only against petitioner General dela Paz but also against all those present at the
hearing, notably DILG Secretary Ronaldo Puno and PNP Chief Jesus Versoza.
1
Page 4 of the October 23, 2008 hearing at 10:05 a.m Transcript of Stenographic Notes
2
Worse, in grave and patent abuse of her discretion and authority, devoid of any
jurisdiction, and without even waiting for the concurrence of the other members of the
committee, Sen. Santiago ordered the Senate’s Sergeant at Arms, the Hon. Jose Balajadia,
Jr., to arrest the petitioners and to bring them before her, “now, if possible.”
With all due respect, petitioners respectfully submit that the respondent
INSTANCES:
which is no longer covered by the authority granted by the Senate’s own rules;
(3) It ordered, upon the decision of the Committee Chair alone, the immediate arrest
of the petitioners, in patent violation of the committee's own rules which provide
case, even assuming that it has the requisite jurisdiction over the case, it is
due process of law. Comparatively speaking, the Court has on many occasions required
judges to comply strictly with the due process requirements on issuing warrants of arrest,
failure of which has resulted in the voiding of the warrants. The denial of a person’s
fundamental right to due process amounts to the illegality of the proceedings against him.
The doctrine consistently adhered to by the Supreme Court is that a denial of due process
2
488 SCRA 1
3
suffices to cast on the official act taken by whichever branch of the government the
impress of nullity, the fundamental right to due process being a cornerstone of our legal
system. The right to due process is a cardinal and primary right which must be respected
in all proceedings.”3
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining order, filed pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
A. ANNUL AND SET ASIDE the Orders given in open session by the Hon. Sen. Miriam
Defensor Santiago, in her capacity as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
in grave abuse and in excess of her jurisdiction, during the hearing last 23 October 2008:
B. PROHIBIT (a) the respondent Senate Foreign Relations Committee from proceeding
with its hearings and conducting its inquiries on this case, and (b) the respondent
Sergeant of Arms, the Hon. Jose Balajadia, Jr., from enforcing any warrant of arrest that
may have been ordered issued by the Committee to compel the attendance of petitioners
3
Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers & Investigations (Blue Ribbon),
G.R. No. 180643, September 4, 2008.
4
In support of his petition, and as proof of the questioned orders herein, petitioners
respectfully enclose as Annex “A” certified true copies of the transcripts of stenographic
At the time of the filing of this Petition, the issuance of the warrant of arrest
the media that all that is being awaited is the signature of the Senate President, Manuel B.
Villar. Thus, petitioners herein likewise seeks the issuance of a preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order against the respondents directing that the proceedings against
them in the subject case cease while the instant petition is under consideration.
1.01 Petitioners received a copy of a Subpoena dated 21 October 2008, Annexes “B”
and “C”, requiring them to appear and testify at the hearing on 23 October 2008 to be
1.02 On 23 October 2008, on the date of the hearing, petitioner Gen. dela Paz filed a
1.03 Sen. Santiago, in her capacity as Chair of the Committee, in grave abuse of
Jurisdiction with Motion to Quash Subpoenae and thereupon ordered the Arrest of the
Petitioners. A copy of the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the proceedings,
attesting to the issuance of the questioned orders, is attached and made an integral part hereof
as Annex “A”.
5
1.04 As the issue here involves a denial of petitioner’s substantive and procedural
rights to due process, the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration was no longer deemed
necessary.4 Besides, right after the denial of petitioner’s Challenge, Sen. Santiago suggested
to counsel that he can appeal her ruling directly to the Supreme Court.5
1.05. As the filing of this Petition, the Warrant of Arrest is yet to be issued but
appears to be impending, awaiting the signature of the Senate President, Manuel B. Villar
THE PARTIES
Petitioners Spouses PNP Director (Ret.) ELISEO DELA PAZ and MARIA FE
DELA PAZ, are both of legal age, Filipinos, and with residence address at c/o Camp
Crame, Quezon City. Petitioner Gen. dela Paz is a recently retired Director of the
Philippine National Police who has served his country without taint and blemish for all
the years that he had been protecting and enforcing the laws of the land. Petitioners may
be served with summons and other processes of the Honorable Court through undersigned
counsel, the MALAYA, SANCHEZ, AÑOVER, AÑOVER and SIMPAO LAW OFFICE,
with address at Suite 422 Chateau Verde Condo. Valle Verde I, Brgy. Ugong, 1604 Pasig
City.
committees of the Senate of the Philippines, and is being chaired by Sen. Miriam
Defensor Santiago. Pursuant to its own rules, the Committee on Foreign Relations is
4
Abraham vs. NLRC 353 SCRA p. 739
5
Page 4, TSN, Oct. 23, 2008, Annex “A”
6
Respondent Jose Balajadia is the Sergeant At Arms of the Senate who is tasked to
Respondents may be served with summons and other processes of the Honorable
Court at the Committee on Foreign Relations, Senate of the Philippines, GSIS Building,
1.01 On 4 September 2008, a PNP delegation composed of eight (8) senior PNP
officers were given authority by Secretary of DILG, Ronaldo V. Puno to travel on official
mission to attend the 77th General Assembly Session of International Criminal Police
1.02 Petitioner Gen. dela Paz brought along with him as “Contingency fund”, the
amount of Six Million Nine Hundred Thirty Thousand Pesos (P6,930,000.00) which was
contingency fund was cash advanced from PNP funds by Police Director Dela Paz in his
capacity as Special Disbursing Officer (SDO) of the PNP delegation while traveling to
1.03 The PNP delegation arrived in St. Petersburg via Hongkong and Moscow on
October 6, 2008. The personal belongings and foreign currencies brought by the
delegation were not inspected at the port of entry in Moscow. Thereafter, the delegation
1.04 On 9 October 2008, while the group was already at the departure area of the
7
authorities regarding the foreign currencies they were carrying which reportedly exceeded
1.04 Upon petitioner Gen. dela Paz’s submission to the Russian authorities of
pertinent documents showing that the money he was carrying was the contingency fund of
the PNP delegation, petitioners were ordered released. Upon agreement with the Russian
customs officials, the contingency fund will be wired back to the Philippines and will be
1.06 The said contingency fund will be liquidated by petitioner Gen. dela Paz in
accordance with existing accounting and auditing rules and regulation within one month
1.07 Even before formal investigations could even begin, certain malicious
insinuations and derogatory conclusions, not only against petitioner Gen. dela Paz but
against the other convention delegates and the leadership as well of the PNP and of the
Department of the Interior and Local Government, had already come out in public.
1.08 Initial media reports bared that petitioner Gen. dela Paz will be invited to a
Senate hearing to shed light on the issue. However, petitioner Gen. dela Paz was
appear and submit all documents pertinent to the official trip the very next day, on 23
October 2008. It is noteworthy that the subpoena did not state any legislative purpose or
any intended legislation, which is a requirement which the Senate has imposed upon
1.09 Worse, it pained petitioner Gen. dela Paz to find out that even his wife was
not spared as she herself has been issued a subpoena to testify in the Senate hearing
8
conducted in 23 October 2008. Attached hereto as Annexes “B” and “C” are copies of
1.10 On 22 October 2008, petitioner Gen. dela Paz voluntary appeared before the
Office of the Ombudsman and assured them of his full cooperation in any investigation
1.11 On 23 October 2008, the date of the Senate hearing, petitioner Gen. dela Paz
filed before the respondent Committee a “Challenge to Jurisdiction with Motion to Quash
discretion and in ignoring the SCOPE OF THE JURISDICTION of her Committee and
1.12 Moreover, the respondent Senator failed to observe the standards of due
process when she ordered respondent Balajadia to arrest petitioners and instantly bring
I.
9
II.
III.
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS
2.01 Under Rule X, Section 13(12), the specific powers and duties of the
10
Nations; the United Nations Organization and its agencies; multi-lateral
organizations; all international agreements, obligations and contracts; and
overseas Filipinos.
It is clear, therefore, that only matters that concern “relations of the Philippines
with other nations”, or “state to state” relations, fall within the jurisdiction of the
respondent Committee. Ordinary day to day occurrences which do not involve the
relations of the Philippines with other countries do not, and should not, fall within the
This particular case, therefore, which merely involves an infraction of a local law
committed by a Filipino citizen abroad, does not fall within the ambit of the phrase “state
to state” relations. To hold otherwise would lead to the absurd interpretation that all
infractions committed by Filipinos abroad would all impact on the foreign relations that
the Philippines has with that country which would always compel the respondent
To illustrate our point, it would appear from all indications that the incident in
Moscow will not disrupt or even alter the present state of foreign relations that the
Philippines presently has with Russia. Petitioners doubt that it was ever the intention of
the respondent Committee to review its foreign relations with Russia, whatever the results
of its investigation would be. The state of our foreign relations with Russia was never an
any legislative inquiry on the subject of its subpoena. Lacking jurisdiction on the subject
matter, it has no power to issue any invitation, notices, more so the subpoenae subject of
11
this challenge and motion. Thus, the subject subpoenae must be quashed for having been
2.03 Petitioners also hasten to add that the procedures on the need to indicate in
the subpoena the proposed legislation that prompted the inquiry was likewise not
followed. These are rooted on fairness and due process, as required by this Honorable
Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Mar Roxas, Juan Miguel Zubiri, and Aquilino Pimentel. It is
beyond question that such an attendance does not constitute a QUORUM to exercise
“The Committee, by a vote of majority of all its members, may punish for
contempt any witness before it who disobey any order of the Committee or
refuses to be sworn or to testify or to answer proper questions by the
Committee or any of its members.”
3.02 The leading case on the issue of Quorum and the legality of its acts was
clearly ruled upon by the Court in the case of Neri v. Senate Committee on
and Commerce, and Senate Committee on National Defense and Security GR No.
12
180643 March 25, 2008. The Court ruled that “(C)learly, the needed vote is a majority
of all the members of the Committee.” In this case, the challenged Order of Arrest was
ordered to be issued ONLY by the Committee Chair herself. Thus, there is a cloud of
doubt as to the validity of the Order given in open session last 23 October 2008 ordering
the arrest of petitioners. In the Neri case, the relevant portion on the issue on quorum
reads:
13
merely stating that, sir, that when we will prepare the
documentation, if a majority of all members sign and I am
following the Sabio v. Gordon rule wherein I do believe, if I am
not mistaken, Chairman Gordon prepared the documentation and
then either in caucus or in session asked the other members to
sign. And once the signatures are obtained, solely for the purpose
that Secretary Neri or Mr. Lozada will not be able to legally
question our subpoena as being insufficient in accordance with
law.
14
judicial review could have been avoided if powers are discharged
with circumspection and deference. Concomitant with the doctrine
of separation of powers is the mandate to observe respect to a co-
equal branch of the government.”
safeguards that proscribe the legislative power of inquiry. The provision requires that the
inquiry be done in accordance with the Senate or House’s duly published rules of
without duly published rules of procedure. (Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita7.
4.02 In the same case of Neri, the Supreme Court ruled, in quoting the OSG, that
the phrase “duly published rules of procedure” requires the Senate of every Congress to
publish its rules of procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation because every
Senate is distinct from the one before it or after it. Since Senatorial elections are held
every three (3) years for one-half of the Senate’s membership, the composition of the
Senate also changes by the end of each term. Each Senate may thus enact a different set
of rules as it may deem, fit. Not having published its Rules of Procedure, the subject
hearings in aid of legislation conducted by the 14th Senate, are therefore, procedurally
infirm.
4.03 Justice Isagani Cruz, in his book Philippine Political Law, offers a verifiable
observation:
“The reason is that in the past this power was much abused by
some legislators who used it for illegitimate ends or to browbeat or
intimidate witnesses, usually for grandstanding purposes only. There were
also times when the subject of the inquiry was purely private in nature and
therefore outside the scope of the powers of the Congress.
7
488 SCRA 1
15
To correct these excesses, it is now provided that the legislative
inquiry must be in aid of legislation, whether it be under consideration
already or still to be drafted. Furthermore, the conduct of the investigation
must be strictly in conformity with the rules of procedure that must have
been published in advance for the information and protection of the
witnesses.”8
4.04 Hence, it is indispensable that the Senate Rules of Procedure during the
current 14th Congress must be duly published. The problem is, the rules have not been
the due process requirement. Due process requires that fair notice be given to those
concerned before the rules that put their liberty at risk take effect.10 The rationale of this
“Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun
instead of skulking in the shadows with their dark, deep secrets.
Mysterious pronouncements and rumored rules cannot be recognized as
binding unless their existence and contents are confirmed by a valid
publication intended to make full disclosure and give proper notice to
the people. The furtive law is like a scabbarded saber that cannot feint,
parry or cut unless the naked blade is drawn.”
4.05 The current Senate cannot in good conscience neglect to publish its Rules of
Procedure. Nor could its Committee ignore the Rules, especially those on quorum. In the
inquiry, any action which affects substantial rights of persons would be anathema, and
risks unconstitutionality. Even if there is such a rule or statute duly published, if it lacks
comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ in its application, the rule or statute would be repugnant to the
Constitution in two respects: it violates due process for failure to accord persons,
especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid; and, it leaves the
law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary
8
I. Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 163-164 (2002 ed)
9
146 SCRA 446
10
See Globe Telecom, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission, 435 SCRA 110, 148.
16
flexing of the Government muscle.11 How much more in this case where there is a patent
lack of publication and proper notice of the applicable rules. Or where the rules are
PRAYER
(1) ANNUL AND SET ASIDE, for having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion and in excess of jurisdiction, the Orders given in open session last
Senate Sergeant Arms, Jose Balajadia, Jr. to arrest the petitioners and to
(2) PROHIBIT the respondents from assuming jurisdiction over the case, from
enforcing any of the orders, decisions or reports and that it may issue in the
In the meantime that this petition is being heard by this Honorable Court, it is
likewise prayed that a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction be issued
temporarily enjoining the respondents from proceeding with the conduct of their
legislative inquiry as regards the Moscow incident against the petitioners in any manner
and compelling them to submit to the jurisdiction of the Committee and to restrain the
11
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001.
12
See cf “Tatad points out Senate’s misreading of its rules.” Manila Bulletin, July 29, 2008, p. 18.
17
MALAYA, SANCHEZ, AÑOVER,
AÑOVER and SIMPAO LAW OFFICES
Counsel for the Petitioners
Suite 422 Chateau Verde Condominium,
Valle Verde I (Gate 2), E. Rodriguez, Jr. Ave.
Brgy. Ugong, 1604 Pasig City
By:
NOEL M. MALAYA
PTR #4309997; 1/04/08 QC
IBP Lifetime Roll No. 02767
Bar Roll No. 29216
ALBERT DENNIS N. AÑOVER
PTR No. 4310000; 01/04/08 Pasig
IBP Lifetime Roll No. 0276
Roll No. 34810
MCLE Compliance No. II-0001863; June 29, 2007
REYNALDO R. SIMPAO
PTR No. 9771352;01/07/08 Quezon City
IBP No. 726181;01/03/08 Quezon City
Roll No. 40980
ALEXIS M. ABASTILLAS-SUAREZ
PTR No. 4334353;01/04/08 Pasig City
IBP No. 733019;01/04/08 Neg. Occ.
Roll No. 49650
MCLE Compliance #II - 0002763
VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION
AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING
We, Spouses PNP Director ELISEO DELA PAZ (Ret.) and MARIA FE
DELA PAZ, of legal age, Filipinos and with postal address at
______________________, after having been duly sworn to, hereby depose and say, that:
18
We caused the preparation of the above Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition;
and have read and understood the same and that the allegations therein are true and
correct of our own personal knowledge and/or based on the authentic records of this case.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our hands this 27th day of
October 2008 in Pasig City.
MARBERT J. QUIA-ONG
Doc. No 397 Appointment No. 65[2008-2009]
Page No. 80 Notary Public – City of Pasig
Book No. I Until December 31, 2009
Series of 2008 PTR No. 4334351;01/04/08 Pasig
IBP No. 733021;01/04/08 RSM
TIN 102-918-531
Suite 422 Chateau Verde condo.
VVI, E. Rodriguez, Jr. Ave.
Brgy. Ugong, Pasig City
COPY FURNISHED:
19
OFFICE OF THE SENATE LEGAL COUNSEL
Pasay City
20