SCB Philippines vs Senate Committee on Banks,

Financial Institution and Currencies en banc

Posted by kaye lee on 4:05 PM
G.R. No. 167173 December 27, 2007

FACTS:
SCB Phil Branch had criminal and civil charges against them before the courts in
Metro Manila for selling unregistered foreign securities in violation of Securities
Regulation Code (RA 8799). Enrile, in his privileged speech, urged the Senate to
immediately conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation, to prevent the occurrences of
a similar fraudulent in the future. The respondent Committee then set an initial
hearing to investigate, in aid of legislation thereto. SCB stressed that there were
cases allegedly involving the same issues subject of legislative inquiry, thus
posting a challenge to the jurisdiction of respondent Committee to continue with
the inquiry.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent Committee, by aid of legislation, would encroach upon
the judicial powers vested solely in the courts who took cognizance of the
foregoing cases.

RULING:
Yes. The unmistakable objective of the investigation, as set forth in the
resolution, as initiated in the privileged speech of Senate President Enrile, was
simply "to denounce the illegal practices committed by a foreign bank in selling
unregistered foreign securities xxx", and at the conclusion of the said speech "to
immediately conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation, so as to prevent the
occurrence of a similar fraudulent in the future."

The mere filing of a criminal or administrative complaint before a court or a

quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislation. The
exercise of sovereign legislative authority, of which the power of legislative
inquiry is an essential component, cannot be made subordinate to a criminal or an
administrative investigation.

The intent of legislative inquiries is to arrive at a policy determination, which

may or may not be enacted into law. Except only when it exercises the power to
punish for contempt, the committees of the Senate or the House of Representatives
cannot penalize violators even there is overwhelmingly evidence of criminal
culpability. Other than proposing or initiating amendatory or remedial legislation,
respondent Committee can only recommend measures to address or remedy whatever
irregularities may be unearthed during the investigation, although it may include
in its Report a recommendation for criminal indictment of persons who may appear
liable. At best, the recommendation, along with the evidence, contained in such
Report would only be persuasive, but it is still up to the prosecutorial agencies
and the courts to determine the liabilities of the offender.

Bengzon v Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Digest

G.R. No. 89914 November 20, 1991

Padilla, J.:

Facts:
1. Petitioner was one of the defendants in a civil case filed by the government with the Sandiganbayan for
the alleged anomalous sale of Kokoy Romoaldez of several government corporations to the group of
Lopa, a brother-in-law of Pres. Aquino.

2. By virtue of a privilege speech made by Sen. Enrile urging the Senate to look into the transactions, an
investigation was conducted by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. Petitioners and Ricardo Lopa were
subpoenaed by the Committee to appear before it and testify on "what they know" regarding the "sale of
thirty-six (36) corporations belonging to Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez."

3. At the hearing, Lopa declined to testify on the ground that his testimony may "unduly prejudice" the
defendants in civil case before the Sandiganbayan.

4. Petitioner filed for a TRO and/or injunctive relief claiming that the inquiry was beyond the
jurisdiction of the Senate. He contended that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee acted in excess of its
jurisdiction and legislative purpose. One of the defendants in the case before the Sandiganbayan,
Sandejas, filed with the Court of motion for intervention. The Court granted it and required the
 respondent Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to comment on the petition in intervention.
ISSUE: W/N the Blue Ribbon inquiry was in aid of legislation

NO.
1. There appears to be no intended legislation involved. The purpose of the inquiry to be conducted
is not related to a purpose within the jurisdiction of Congress, it was conducted to find out whether or
not the relatives of President Aquino, particularly Mr. Lopa had violated RA 3019 in connection with
the alleged sale of the 36 or 39 corporations belonging to Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez to the Lopa
Group.

2. The power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not absolute or
unlimited. Its exercise is circumscribed by the Constitution. As provided therein, the investigation
must be "in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure" and that "the
rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected." It follows then that the
rights of persons under the Bill of Rights must be respected, including the right to due process and the
right not to be compelled to testify against one's self.
. The civil case was already filed in the Sandiganbayan and for the Committee to probe and inquire into
the same justiciable controversy would be an encroachment into the exclusive domain of judicial
jurisdiction that had already earlier set in. The issue sought to be investigated has already been pre-
empted by the Sandiganbayan. To allow the inquiry to continue would not only pose the possibility of
conflicting judgments between the legislative committee and a judicial tribunal.

4. Finally, a congressional committee’s right to inquire is subject to all relevant limitations placed by
the Constitution on governmental action ‘including the relevant limitations of the Bill of Rights. One
of these rights is the right of an individual to against self-incrimination. The right to remain silent is
extended to respondents in administrative investigations but only if it partakes of the nature of a
criminal proceeding or analogous to a criminal proceeding. Hence, the petitioners may not be
compelled by respondent Committee to appear, testify and produce evidence before it only because the
inquiry is not in aid of legislation and if pursued would be violative of the principle of separation of
powers between the legislative and the judicial departments of the government as ordained by the
Constitution.