Ong vs.
Senate of the Philippines
Decision Date: Mar 28, 2023
The Supreme Court nullifies contempt orders against Ong and Yang
for lack of due process, upholds cons;tu;onality of provisions
punishing false tes;mony, and emphasizes the importance of
respec;ng rights in legisla;ve inquiries.
Case Digest
Facts: Pe77ons filed by Linconn Uy Ong and Michael Yang Hong Ming
challenging the contempt orders issued by the Senate CommiGee on
Accountability of Public Officers and Inves7ga7ons (Senate Blue
Ribbon CommiGee)
• Ong argues that the contempt order has no cons7tu7onal
basis and that the rules punishing false or evasive tes7mony
are vague
• Ong claims that his rights, par7cularly his right to due
process, have been violated
• Yang argues that the CommiGee commiGed grave abuse of
discre7on by issuing arrest orders and a lookout bulle7n
against him without legal basis
• Yang claims that his rights to counsel and to be heard were
violated, and that he was compelled to answer ques7ons and
submit documents beyond the scope of the legisla7ve
inquiry, viola7ng his right to privacy
• The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) intervenes in the
case, arguing that the pe77ons raise issues of transcendental
importance and that there was grave abuse of discre7on by
the CommiGee
• The OSG argues that the CommiGee's powers under the
Cons7tu7on and its rules have limita7ons, par7cularly in
respec7ng the rights of resource persons during Senate
inves7ga7ons
Issue: Whether the contempt orders issued against Ong and Yang
were valid.
• Whether the provisions in the Senate Rules punishing
witnesses who tes7fy falsely or evasively are cons7tu7onal.
Ruling:
• The Supreme Court ruled that the contempt orders issued
against Ong and Yang were nullified for being issued without
due process.
• The Court held that the Senate CommiGee commiGed grave
abuse of discre7on in not giving Ong and Yang the
opportunity to be heard before ci7ng them in contempt and
ordering their arrest.
• The Court also upheld the cons7tu7onality of the provisions
in the Senate Rules punishing witnesses who tes7fy falsely or
evasively.
• The Court held that the phrase "tes7fies falsely or evasively"
is not vague and can be understood by persons of common
intelligence.
• The Court emphasized that the power of Congress to punish
contempt is inherent in its power to conduct legisla7ve
inquiries, but it must be exercised cau7ously and judiciously.
Ra7o: The Senate CommiGee commiGed grave abuse of discre7on in
not giving Ong and Yang the opportunity to be heard before ci7ng
them in contempt and ordering their arrest. Due process requires
that a person be given the chance to explain their side before being
penalized.
The phrase "tes7fies falsely or evasively" in the Senate Rules is not
vague and can be understood by persons of common intelligence.
The power of Congress to punish contempt is inherent in its power
to conduct legisla7ve inquiries, but it must be exercised cau7ously
and judiciously.
Case Summary: Parties Involved and Key Details
• Linconn Uy Ong and Michael Yang Hong Ming filed petitions challenging
the Contempt Order issued by the Senate Committee on Accountability of
Public Officers and Investigations (Senate Blue Ribbon Committee).
• Ong challenges the Contempt Order and the constitutionality of the
Senate's rules on contempt.
• Yang challenges the arrest orders and lookout bulletin issued against him
by the Senate Committee.
• The Court finds that the Senate Committee satisfied the first two
limitations of the contempt power, but failed to accord due process to the
petitioners during the proceedings.
• The Court highlights the Committee's violation of petitioners' rights to due
process and unreasonable seizures.
• The case was rendered moot by the termination of the legislative inquiry
and the voluntary release of Ong, but the Court decides to resolve the
issues raised due to their importance and the Committee's abuse of
discretion.
• The Court rules that while the Senate has the power to cite individuals in
contempt during legislative inquiries, proper due process must be
observed.
• The Court nullifies the Contempt Order against Ong and Yang and
emphasizes the importance of respecting the rights of persons appearing
in or affected by legislative inquiries.
Background and Petitions
• Ong and Yang were cited in contempt by the Senate Committee for
allegedly testifying falsely or evasively during the legislative inquiry on the
transactions between Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corporation and the
government.
• Ong and Yang argue that the contempt orders were issued with grave
abuse of discretion and that the phrase "testifies falsely or evasively" in
the Senate rules is vague and unconstitutional.
• They also challenge the legality of the Committee's request for the
issuance of a lookout bulletin against Yang.
Power of the Legislature to Conduct Inquiries and Contempt
• The Court emphasizes that the power of legislative investigation is broad
and encompasses everything concerning the administration of existing
laws and proposed statutes.
• The Court recognizes the Legislature's inherent power of contempt, which
allows it to enforce its inquiries and compel the availability of information
necessary for legislation.
• The exercise of the contempt power is subject to limitations, including
conducting the inquiry in aid of legislation, in accordance with the
Legislature's published rules of procedure, and respecting the rights of
persons appearing in or affected by the inquiries.
Violation of Due Process Rights
• The Court finds that the Senate Committee satisfied the first two
limitations as the hearings were conducted in aid of legislation and the
rules on contempt were duly published.
• However, the Committee failed to accord petitioners their rights to due
process during the proceedings.
• The Court specifically points out that the Contempt Order finding Ong and
Yang guilty of testifying falsely and evasively lacks factual basis.
• The Court highlights the Committee's violation of petitioners' rights to due
process and unreasonable seizures.
 • The Court concludes that the Committee's actions constitute grave abuse
of discretion.
Transcendental Importance and Resolution of the Issues
• Although the case was rendered moot by the termination of the legislative
inquiry and the voluntary release of Ong, the Court decides to resolve the
issues raised due to their transcendental importance and the grave abuse
of discretion committed by the Committee.
• The Court rules that while the Senate has the power to cite individuals in
contempt during legislative inquiries, proper due process must be
observed.
• The Court nullifies the Contempt Order against Ong and Yang and
emphasizes the importance of respecting the rights of persons appearing
in or affected by legislative inquiries.
G.R. No. 257401 / G.R. No. 257916 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – The
Legislative Department – Inquiry in Aid of Legislation – Senate’s Contempt Power
Must be Exercised with Due Process
**This case was consolidated with Michael Yang vs Senate Committee on
Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (G.R. No. 257916).
In 2021, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee also known as the Senate Committee
on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations conducted a legislative inquiry
in aid of legislation on how the government spent the DOH’s budget in response to
the COVID 19 pandemic.
One of the responses by the government was to purchase Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE) and one of the suppliers which obtained a total of Php8.8B worth
of contracts from the DBM was Pharmally. Upon inquiry, it turned out that Pharmally
was just a small company and its incorporators had ties with Michael Yang Hong
Ming (Michael Yang) who was then a presidential economic adviser. To clarify on
the contracts awarded, the SRBC subpoenaed Michael Yang and Linconn Ong, a
director of Pharmally.
Eventually, Ong and Yang appeared before a committee hearing conducted on 10
September 2021. However, the committee deemed their responses to the
committee’s questions to be false and evasive. As a result, they were cited in
contempt by the SRBC Chair (Sen. Dick Gordon). The citation was approved by
Senate President Tito Sotto. Yang and Ong were placed under the custody of the
Senate after their arrest.
Yang and Ong filed their respective petitions for certiorari and prohibition questioning
the contempt and arrest orders against them.
ISSUE: Whether or not the contempt orders and the subsequent arrests were valid.
HELD: No. Under Sec. 21, Article VI of the Constitution, the Legislature and its
committees have the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance
with duly published rules of procedure. To effectively use this power, both houses,
including their committees, may employ available mechanisms, such as the power
to cite individuals in contempt and arrest those cited in contempt, in order that they
may effectively perform their legislative functions. Although the contempt power and
the arrest power of the Legislature are not written in the Constitution, these powers
are inherent in Congress by virtue of its power to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation.
However, before the contempt power and the arrest power may be validly employed,
the following must be observed:
(a) the inquiry must be in “aid of legislation”;
(b) the inquiry must be conducted in accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure; and
(c) the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
Further, where there is factual basis for contempt, the resource person’s detention
should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry.
In these cases, Ong’s and Yang’s right to due process were not respected. Before
they were cited in contempt and subsequently arrested, they should have been given
the opportunity to be heard. They should have been made to explain and show cause
that their testimonies are not evasive nor false. Without such due process, the
arrests made upon Yang and Ong were unlawful deprivation of liberty.