Balag vs Senate

G.R. No. 234608

July 3, 2018
Espinosa
Facts:
Horacio Tomas T. Castillo III, also known as Horacio III, is now enrolled in the first
year of law school at the University of Sto.
It is believed that Tomas (UST), who was a member of the Aegis Juris Fraternity AJ
Fraternity), passed away as a result of hazing that was carried out at the same
university. After the events, a number of Senate Resolutions (SRs) were
introduced in order to initiate an investigation into the killing of Horacio III in
order to facilitate legislation.
The court ruled that the matter was moot and academic because Balag had
already been freed from jail prior to the hearing. Despite this, the court made the
decision to investigate the case’s underlying issues since they are of high
importance. In this instance, the petition raises a significant and important
question that has to be answered by the Court: how long should the individual be
held in prison after the Senate issued a contempt order against them?
The order of contempt that was made against Balag merely said that he would be
imprisoned and kept until such time that he presents his true evidence, or else
purges himself of the contempt in some other way. It does not give any specific
information on the length of time that an individual will be held in custody. When
a person is summoned for contempt of the Senate, the Rules do not prescribe a
certain amount of time that they must be held in custody.
The Court came to the conclusion that the period of imprisonment imposed by
the inherent power of contempt by the Senate during inquiries in aid of legislation
should only last until the conclusion of the legislative inquiry under which the said
power is invoked. This conclusion was reached after the Court reviewed the case.
In the case of Arnault v. Nazareno (Arnault), it was stated that the Senate
Committee may enforce obedience to its process if the subject of investigation
before it was within the range of legitimate legislative inquiry and the proposed
testimony called relates to that subject. In other words, the Senate Committee
must establish that the proposed testimony is relevant to the subject under
investigation. Therefore, the inherent power of contempt held by the Senate can
be appropriately employed so long as there is a genuine legislative investigation.
On the other hand, after the aforementioned parliamentary investigation has
come to a close, the inherent power of contempt can no longer be used, and
there is no longer any real reason to punish the imprisoned witness.
Arvin Balag (Balag) and a number of other individuals were invited to a Joint
Public Hearing by the Senate Committee on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs,
which is chaired by Senator Panfilo Lacson (Senator Lacson). This hearing was held
in conjunction with the
Committees on Justice and Human Rights and Constitutional Amendment and
Revision of Codes. The purpose of this hearing was to discuss and deliberate,
among other things, the aforementioned SRs.

Balag, on the other hand, did not show up for the hearing. On the same day, the
parents of Horacio III, Carmina T. Castillo and Horacio M. Castillo, Jr., filed a
complaint for murder and violation of Section 4 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8049
before the Department of Justice (DOJ) against several members of the AJ
Fraternity, including Balag. The complaint was filed against several members of
the AJ Fraternity who were responsible for the death of Horacio III.
Balag was then served with a subpoena by Senator Lacson, who demanded that
he appear at the Congressional session. Balag appeared during the hearing, but
he used his right not to answer any of the questions since he did not want to
incriminate himself. As a direct consequence of this, Balag was issued a citation
for contempt and placed under the sergeant of arms’ custody. After then, Balag
submitted a petition to the Court requesting that his contempt order be
overturned.

Issue:
Should the Court take into consideration Balag’s application?
Ruling:
The court ruled that the matter was moot and academic because Balag had
already been freed from jail prior to the hearing. Despite this, the court made the
decision to investigate the case’s underlying issues since they are of high
importance. In this instance, the petition raises a significant and important
question that has to be answered by the Court: how long should the individual be
held in prison after the Senate issued a contempt order against them?
The order of contempt that was made against Balag merely said that he would be
imprisoned and kept until such time that he presents his true evidence, or else
purges himself of the contempt in some other way. It does not give any specific
information on the length of time that an individual will be held in custody. When
a person is summoned for contempt of the Senate, the Rules do not prescribe a
certain amount of time that they must be held in custody.
The Court came to the conclusion that the period of imprisonment imposed by
the inherent power of contempt by the Senate during inquiries in aid of legislation
should only last until the conclusion of the legislative inquiry under which the said
power is invoked. This conclusion was reached after the Court reviewed the case.
In the case of Arnault v. Nazareno (Arnault), it was stated that the Senate
Committee may enforce obedience to its process if the subject of investigation
before it was within the range of legitimate legislative inquiry and the proposed
testimony called relates to that subject. In other words, the Senate Committee
must establish that the proposed testimony is relevant to the subject under
investigation. Therefore, the inherent power of contempt held by the Senate can
be appropriately employed so long as there is a genuine legislative investigation.
On the other hand, after the aforementioned parliamentary investigation has
come to a close, the inherent power of contempt can no longer be used, and
there is no longer any real reason to punish the imprisoned witness.