Topic: Powers of Congress – Legislative Investigation (Limitations: Rights of Persons appearing

in, or affected by, such inquiry shall be respected & Power to Punish Contempt)

Case

Miguel vs. Gordon [G.R. No. 17430] October 17, 2006

Camilo Sabio, petitioner

J. Ermin Ernest Louie Miguel, petitioner-relator

Sen. Richard Gordon, respondent

Facts:

Senator Miriam Defenso Santiago introduced Philippine Senate Resolution No. 455 “directing an inquiry
in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the PHILCOMSAT and PHILCOMSAT Holdings
Corp. (PHC) due to alleged improprieties in their operations by their respective Board Members.

Under the authority of respondent Gordon, Chairman of the Committee on Government Corporations and
Public Enterprises the Committee of Public services (Committee), petitioner was invited to be one of the
resource persons in the public meeting to deliberate on Senate Res. No. 455. Sabio, Chairman of the
Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG), declined the invitation and also invoke Section
4(b) of E.O. No. 1 which states:

“No member of the 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”

Respondent issued a Subpoena Ad Testificandum approved by the Senate President, requiring petitioner
to appear in the public hearing and testify on what they know relative to the matters specified in Senate
Res. No. 455. Petitioner refused to appear, invoking Sec. 4(b) of E.O. 1. Again, under the authority of
respondent, another notice was sent to petitioner resulting with the same. These events lead respondent
to issue an Order requiring petitioner to show causes why they should not be cited in contempt of the
Senate.

Petitioner answered respondent Order by stating that: the power of legislative inquiry is limited by Sec.
4(b) of E.O. 1. Rule of law requires that the subject inquiry in aid of legislation must be carried out by legal
methods. Said E.O. has not been amended, repealed or revised in anyway; it stands to be respected as
part of the system in this jurisdiction.

Unconvinced with the explanation, as Chairman of the Committee, respondent placed petitioner under
arrest for contempt of the Senate. Petitioner was brought to the Senate premises where he was detained;
hence, this petition for habeas corpus against respondent and the Committee.

During the oral arguments, petitioner was allowed to go home rendering petition for habeas corpus
MOOT.

However, Petitioner also filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, docketed as G.R. No. 174318 which
studies the petitioner’s invoking of Sec. 4(b) of E.O. 1 as an exemption to legislative inquiry. Their claim of
exemption is their only defense for the violation of contempt filed against them.

Issue:
Whether or not Sec. 4(b) has been repealed by the 1987 Constitution, specifically Article VI Section 21

Rule:

Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution – The Senate or House of Representatives or any of its
respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published
rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected

Analysis:

Legislative Inquiry

The right to pass laws necessarily implies the right to obtain information upon any matter which may
become the subject of a law. Therefore, a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the
absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect change. A
mere provision of law cannot pose a limitation to the broad power of Congress, in the absence of any
constitutional basis.

Rights of Persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiry shall be respected

Congress must exercise its powers subject to the limitations placed by the Constitution, in the
context of this case, the limitations of the Bill of Rights. However, the Petitioners have no reasonable
expectation of privacy over matters involving their offices in a corporation where the government has
interest. Such matters are of public concern and over which the people have the right to information.
Right to privacy is not absolute when there is an overriding compelling state interest.

Power to punish Contempt

Legislative power of inquiry must carry with it all powers necessary and proper for its effective
discharge. Congress has the power to punish disobedient witnesses founded upon reason and
policy. “Mere requests for such information are often unavailing… some means of compulsion is essential
to obtain what is needed”. Power must be considered implied or incidental to the exercise of legislative
power. Contempt power is characterized as a matter of self-preservation; it keeps the legislative
branch independent from the judiciary by not relying on them to remedy contemptuous witnesses.

Conclusion

G.R. 17430 was DISMISSED for being moot. G.R. 174318, petition for certiorari and prohibition is
DISMISSED, on grounds that their petition was anchored on the constitutionality of Sec. 4(b) of E.O. 1,
which has been REPEALED by the 1987 Constitution.