Arnault v. Nazareno Contempt power of the Legislature G.R. No. L-3820 | 1950-07-18
1. The investigating committee has the power to
Subject: Art VI, Sec 21 , Contempt powers of the require a witness to answer any question pertinent Legislative branch, Right against self- to any inquiry within the jurisdiction of a legislative incrimination; Judicial intervention body to make, subject of course to the witness’ constitutional right against self-incrimination. Facts: 2. The inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the The controversy arose from the purchase by the legislative body to make, must be material or Philippine Government of two estates: Buenavista necessary to the exercise of a power vested in it by Estate (for P4.5M) and Tambobong Estate for (for the Constitution, such as to legislate, or to expel a P500K). P1.5M of the P5M sum paid by the Member. government went to Ernest H. Burt, a nonresident American, who had interests in both estates. The 3. It is not necessary for the legislative body to sum was paid to Burt through two corporations both show that every question propounded to a witness is represented by Jean L. Arnault. material to any proposed or possible legislation; what is required is that is that it be pertinent to the The Senate opened an investigation into the alleged matter under inquiry. The reason is, that the overpayment by the government for the two estates, necessity or lack of necessity for legislative action including the government's paying to Burt the total and the form and character of the action itself are sum of P1.5M for his alleged interest of only P20,000 determined by the sum total of the information to in the two estates, which he seemed to have be gathered as a result of the investigation, and not forfeited anyway long before. by a fraction of such information elicited from a single question. During the investigation by the Special Committe, Arnault testified that he deposited the two checks 4. The question for which Arnault was held in aggregating P1.5M into an account and he draw on contempt by the Senate is pertinent to the matter said account two checks; one for P500K which he under inquiry. transferred to another account and another for P440,000 which he encashed and gave to an 5. By refusing to answer the questions, the witness unnamed person. has obstructed the performance by the Senate of its legislative function, and the Senate has the power to For refusing to reveal the name of the person to remove the obstruction by compelling the witness to whom he gave the P440,000 as well as answer other answer the questions thru restraint of his liberty questions, the Senate issued a Resolution holding until he shall have answered them. Arnault in contempt and ordering him to be imprisoned in the New Bilibid Prison until he gave 6. The power to punish for contempt does not the answers requested. Hence, this petition for terminate upon the adjournment of the session The habeas corpus filed by Arnault. Senate as a continuing body does not cease to exist upon the periodical dissolution of the Congress or of Petitioner questions the authority of the Senate to the House of Representatives. There is no time limit commit him for contempt and ,further, to commit to the Senate's power to punish for contempt. him for a term beyond its period of legislative session, which ended on May 18, 1950. 7. Testimony which is obviously false or evasive is equivalent to a refusal to testify and is punishable as contempt, assuming that a refusal to testify would be so punishable. Right against self-incrimination
8. A witness is not relieved from answering merely
on his own declaration that an answer might incriminate him, but rather it is for the trial judge to decide that question. It is the province of the court to determine whether a direct answer to a question may criminate or not. The fact that the testimony of a witness may tend to show that he has violated the law is not sufficient to entitle him to claim the protection of the constitutional provision against self-incrimination, unless he is at the same time liable to prosecution and punishment for such violation. The witness cannot assert his privilege by reason of some fanciful excuse, for protection against an imaginary danger, or to secure immunity to a third person.
9. Since according to the witness himself the
transaction was legal, and that he gave the P440,000 to a representative of Burt in compliance with the latter's verbal instruction, we find no basis upon which to sustain his claim that to reveal the name of that person might incriminate him.
Judicial intervention
10. The fact that the legislative body has jurisdiction
or the power to make the inquiry would not preclude judicial intervention to correct a clear abuse of discretion in the exercise of that power.