Case Title:

REGHIS M. ROMERO II, EDMOND Q. SESE,

LEOPOLDO T. SANCHEZ, REGHIS M. ROMERO III, MICHAEL
L. ROMERO, NATHANIEL L. ROMERO, and JEROME R.
CANLAS, petitioners,
vs.
SENATOR JINGGOY E. ESTRADA and SENATE
COMMITTEE ON LABOR, EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, respondents.

G.R. No. 174105. April 2, 2009. (VELASCO, JR., J).

 (Special Civil Action)

Doctrine:

A legislative investigation in aid of legislation and court proceedings

have different purposes. On-going judicial proceedings do not preclude
congressional hearings in aid of legislation. Legislative investigation is
undertaken as tools to enable the legislative body to gather information
and, thus, legislate wisely and effectively, and to determine whether
there is a need to improve existing laws or enact new or remedial
Legislation.

(Art VI, Section 21 of the Constitution states that “The Senate or the
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.
Summary:
Petitioners were invited to a Senate Hearing to answer questions concerning the
investments of OWWA funds in the Smokey Mountain project. This was done by the
Senate Committee in aid of legislation – to determine propriety of amending Migrant
Workers’ Act and enactment of laws to protect OWWA funds. Petitioners filed this
petition to assail the constitutionality of the invitations and subpoenas issued by the
Senate on the ground that the subject matter of the inquiry is sub judice because of the
pendency of Chavez v. NHA case .

Issues:

1. Was the subject matter of the Senate Inquiry still a sub judice?

2. Notwithstanding that the senate resolutions and letter – invitation were sent by the
previous congress, may the current Congress still compel the presence of the
petitioners to legislative inquiry?

3. Was there a violation of the petitioners’ right against self-incrimination.?

Rulings:

1. The issue was already rendered moot and academic.

The en banc resolution denying with finality the motion of Chavez renders the issue of sub
judice moot and academic. Assuming however that the Chavez case is still pending, it does not
bar the Senate from conducting inquiries in aid of legislation. The purpose of court
proceedings and Senate inquiries were different. Courts adjudicate or settle actual
controversies through the application of law. Senate inquiries enable the legislative body to
gather information to improve lawmaking. These may result in amendment of laws or
enactment of new ones, although the inquiries need not necessarily result to legislations.

Ratio – The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial
proceedings to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the
administration of justice. A violation of the sub judice rule may render one liable for indirect
contempt. This is in view that the Courts, in deciding issues, must be free from external
influences.

On-going judicial proceedings do not preclude congressional hearings in aid of legislation. It

applies to appealed cases and special civil actions awaiting final disposition.
2. Yes, the current congress may still compel the presence of the petitioners
notwithstanding the Senate Resolutions and letter-invitation were sent by the
previous Congress.

RATIO – The Court has no authority to prohibit a Senate committee from requiring
persons to appear and testify before it in connection with an inquiry in aid of
legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. This is a
Constitutional grant of power to the Congress.

All pending matters and proceedings, i.e., unpassed bills and even legislative
investigations, of the Senate of a particular Congress are considered terminated
upon the expiration of that Congress and it is merely optional on the Senate of
the succeeding Congress to take up such unfinished matters, not in the same
status, but as if presented for the first time. For the simple reason that the
compositions of the Congress were different.
3.No, the petitioners’ right against self-incrimination were not
violated.

Ratio - The right against self-incrimination may only be invoked when

incriminating questions were asked, since the witnesses have no way
to know in advance the nature of questions that may be asked in the
inquiry.

That this right may possibly be violated or abused is no ground for

denying respondent Senate Committee their power of inquiry.

The unremitting obligation of every citizen is to respond to

subpoenae, to respect the dignity of the Congress and its
Committees, and to testify fully with respect to matters within the
realm of proper investigation.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.