Republic of the Philippines securities/collaterals just to enable Erectors Inc, to

SUPREME COURT appear viable and to borrow more capitals, so much

Manila so that its obligation with Philgurantee has reached a
total of more than P2 Billion as of June 30, 1987.
EN BANC
(n) at the onset of the present Administration and/or
within the week following the February 1986
G.R. No. 89914 November 20, 1991
People's Revolution, in conspiracy with, supoort,
assistance and collaboration of the abovenamed
JOSE F.S. BENGZON JR., ABELARDO TERMULO, JOSE MANTECON, lawyers of the Bengzon Law Offices, or specifically
VICENTE MILLS JR., LEONARDO GAMBOA, KURT BACHMANN JR., JOSE Defendants Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr., V.E. Jimenez,
V.E. JIMENEZ, ERNESTO CALUYA, AGERICO UNGSON, SUSAN ROXAS, Amando V. Faustino, Jr., and Edilberto S. Narciso, Jr.,
ELVIE CASTILLO, and CYNTHIA SABIDO LIMJAP, petitioners, manipulated, shcemed, and/or executed a series of
vs. devices intended to conceal and place, and/or for the
THE SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE AND ITS MEMBERS, purpose of concealing and placing, beyond the
represented by and through the CHAIRMAN, HON. WIGBERTO inquiry and jurisdiction of the Presidential
TAÑADA, respondents, JOSE S. SANDEJAS, intervenor. Commission on Good Government (PCGG) herein
Defendant's individual and collective funds,
properties, and assets subject of and/or suited int he
Bengzon, Zarraga, Narciso, Cudala, Pecson & Bengson for petitioners.
instant Complaint.
Balgos & Perez for intervening petitioner.

(o) manuevered, with the technical know-how and

Eddie Tamondong and Antonio T. Tagaro for respondents.
legalitic talents of the FMMC senior manager and
some of the Bengzon law partners, such as Attys. Jose
PADILLA, J.: F.S. Bengzon, Jr., Edilberto S. Narciso, Jr., Amando V.
Faustino, Jose Vicente E. Jimenez and Leonardo C.
Cruz, the purported sale of defendant Benjamin
This is a petition for prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a
Romualdez's interests in the (i) Professional
temporary restraining order and/or injuective relief, to enjoin the
Managers, (ii) A & E International Corporation (A &
respondent Senate Blue Ribbon committee from requiring the petitioners
E), (iii) First Manila Managerment Corporation
to testify and produce evidence at its inquiry into the alleged sale of the
(FMMC), (iv) Philippine World Travel Inc. (PWTI) and
equity of Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez to the Lopa Group in thirty-six (36)
its subsidiaries consisting of 36 corporations in all, to
or thirty-nine (39) corporations.
PNI Holdings, Inc. (wjose purported incorporations
are all members of Atty. Jose F.S. Bengzon's law firm)
On 30 July 1987, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the for only P5 million on March 3, 1986 or three days
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), assisted by the after the creation of the Presidential Commission on
Solicitor General, filed with the Sandiganbayan Civil Case No. 0035 (PCGG Good Government on February 28, 1986, for the sole
Case No. 35) entitled "Republic of the Philippines vs. Benjamin "Kokoy" purpose of deceiving and preempting the
Romualdez, et al.", for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and Government, particularly the PCGG, and making it
damages. appear that defendant Benjamin Romualdez had
already divested himself of his ownership of the same
when in truth and in fact, his interests are well intact
The complaint was amended several times by impleading new defendants
and being protected by Atty. Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr. and
and/or amplifying the allegations therein. Under the Second Amended
some of his law partners, together with the FMMC
Complaint, 1 the herein petitioners were impleaded as party defendants.
senior managers who still control and run the affiars
of said corporations, and in order to entice the PCGG
The complaint insofar as pertinent to herein petitioners, as defendants, to approve the said fictitious sale, the above-named
alleges among others that: defendants offered P20 million as "donation" to the
Government;
14. Defendants Benjamin (Kokoy) Romualdez and Juliette
Gomez Romualdez, acting by themselves and/or in unlawful (p) misused, with the connivance, support and
concert with Defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. technical assitance of the Bengzon law firm
Marcos, and taking undue advantage of their relationship, represented by Atty. Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr. as legal
influence and connection with the latter Defendant spouses, counsel, together with defendants Cesar Zalamea,
engaged in devices, schemes and strategems to unjuestly enrigh Antonio Ozaeta, Mario D. Camacho amd Senen J.
themselves at the expense of Plaintiff and the Filipino people, Gabaldon as members of the Board of Directors of the
among others: Philippine Commercial International bank (PCIB), the
Meralco Pension Fund (Fund, for short) in the
amount of P25 million by cuasing it to be invested in
(a) Obatained, with the active collaboration of
the PCIB and through the Bank's TSG, assigned to PCI
Defendants Sene J. Gabaldon, Mario D. Camacho,
Development and PCI Equity at 50% each, the Fund's
Mamerto Nepomuceno, Carlos J. Valdez, Cesar C.
(a) 8,028.011 common shares in the Bank and (b)
Zalamea and Francisco Tantuico, Atty. Jose Bengzon,
"Deposit in Subscription" in the amount of
Jr. and his law partners, namely: Edilberto S. Narciso,
P4,929.972.50 but of the agreed consideration of P28
Jr., Jose Vicente E. Jimenez, Amando V. Faustino, Jr.,
million for the said assignment, PCI Development and
and Leonardo C. Cruz; Jose S. Sandejas and his fellow
PCI Equity were able to pay only P5,500.00
senior managers of FMMC/PNI Holdings groups of
downpayment and the first amortization of
companies such as Leonardo Gamboa, Vicente T.
P3,937,500.00 thus prompting the Fund to rescind its
Mills, Jr., Jose M. Mantecon, Abelardo S. Termulo, Rex
assignment, and the consequent reversion of the
C. Drilon II and Kurt Bachmann, Jr., control of some of
assigned brought the total shareholding of the Fund
the biggest business enterprises in the Philippines,
to 11,470,555 voting shares or 36.8% of the voting
such as the Manila Corporation (MERALCO), Benguet
stock of the PCIB, and this development (which the
Consolidated and the Philippine Commercial
defendants themselves orchestrated or allowed to
International Bank (PCI Bank) by employing devious
happen) was used by them as an excuse for the
financial schemes and techniques calculated to
unlawful dismantling or cancellation of the Fund's 10
require the massive infusion and hemorrhage of
million shares for allegedly exceeding the 30-percent
government funds with minimum or negligible
"cashout" from Defendant Benjamin Romualdez... ceiling prescribed by Section 12-B of the General
Banking Act, although they know for a fact that what
the law declares as unlawful and void ab initio are the
xxx xxx xxx subscriptions in excess of the 30% ceiling "to the
extent of the excess over any of the ceilings
(m) manipulated, with the support, assistance and prescribed ..." and not the whole or entire
collaboration of Philgurantee officials led by stockholding which they allowed to stay for six years
chairman Cesar E.A. Virata and the Senior managers (from June 30, 1980 to March 24, 1986);
of FMMC/PNI Holdings, Inc. led by Jose S. Sandejas,
Jr., Jose M. Mantecom and Kurt S. Bachmann, Jr., (q) cleverly hid behind the veil of corporate entity,
among others, the formation of Erectors Holdings, through the use of the names and managerial
Inc. without infusing additional capital solely for the expertise of the FMMC senior manager and lawyers
purpose of Erectors Incorporated with Philguarantee identified as Jose B. Sandejas, Leonardo Gamboa,
in the amount of P527,387,440.71 with insufficient Vicente T. Mills, Abelardo S, Termulo, Edilberto S.
 Narciso, Jr., Jose M. Mantecon, Rex C. Drilon II, Kurt intervention. In compliance, therewith, respondent Senate Blue
Bachmann, Jr. together with the legal talents of Ribbon Committee filed its comment 10 thereon.
corporate lawyers, such as Attys. Jose F.S. Bengzon,
Jr., Jose V.E. Jimenez, Amando V. Faustino, Jr., and
Before discussing the issues raised by petitioner and intervenor,
Leonardo C. Cruz, the ill-gotten wealth of Benjamin T.
we will first tackle the jurisdictional question raised by the
Romualdez including, among others, the 6,229,177
respondent Committee.
shares in PCIB registered in the names of Trans
Middle East Phils. Equities, Inc. and Edilberto S.
Narciso, Jr. which they refused to surrender to PCGG In its comment, respondent Committee claims that this court
despite their disclosure as they tried and continue to cannot properly inquire into the motives of the lawmakers in
exert efforts in getting hold of the same as well as the conducting legislative investigations, much less cna it enjoin the
shares in Benguet registered in the names of Palm Congress or any its regular and special commitees — like what
Avenue Holdings and Palm Avenue Realty petitioners seek — from making inquiries in aid of legislation,
Development Corp. purportedly to be applied as under the doctrine of separation of powers, which obtaines in
payment for the claim of P70 million of a "merger our present system of government.
company of the First Manila Managerment Corp.
group" supposedly owned by them although the truth
The contention is untenable. In Angara vs. Electoral
is that all the said firms are still beneficially owned by
Commission, 11 the Court held:
defendants Benjamin Romualdez.

The separation of powers is a fundamental principle

xxx xxx xxx
in our system of government. It obtains not hrough
express provision but by actual division in our
On 28 September 1988, petitioner (as defendants) filed their Constitution. Each department of the government has
respective answers. 2 Meanwhile, from 2 to 6 August 1988, exclusive cognizance of matters wihtin its
conflicting reports on the disposition by the PCGG of the jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere.
"Romualdez corporations" were carried in various metropolitan But it does not follow from the fact that the three
newspapers. Thus, one newspaper reported that the Romuladez powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the
firms had not been sequestered because of the opposition of Constitution intended them to be absolutely
certain PCGG officials who "had worked prviously as lawyers of unrestrained and independent of each other. The
the Marcos crony firms." Another daily reported otherwise, Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of
while others declared that on 3 March 1986, or shortly after the checks and balances to secure coordination in the
EDSA February 1986 revolution, the Romualdez companies" workings of the various departments of the
were sold for P5 million, without PCGG approval, to a holding government...
company controlled by Romualdez, and that Ricardo Lopa, the
President's brother-in-law, had effectively taken over the firms,
xxx xxx xxx
even pending negotiations for the purchase of the corporations,
for the same price of P5 million which was reportedly way
below the fair value of their assets. 3 But in the main, the Constitution has blocked out with
deft strokes and in bold lines, allotment of power to
On 13 September 1988, the Senate Minority Floor Leader, Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile delivered a speech
the executive, the legislative and the judicial
"on a matter of personal privilege" before the Senate on the alleged "take-over personal privilege"
departments of the government. The ovelapping and
before the Senate on the alleged "take-over of SOLOIL Incorporated, the flaship of the First Manila
interlacing of funcstions and duties between the
Management of Companies (FMMC) by Ricardo Lopa" and called upon "the Senate to look into the
several deaprtments, however, sometimes makes it
possible violation of the law in the case, particularly with regard to Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-
hard to say just where the political excitement, the
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act." 4
great landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be
forgotten or marred, if not entirely obliterated, in
cases of conflict, the judicial departments is the only
On motion of Senator Orlando Mercado, the matter was referred by the Senate to the Committee on constitutional organ which can be called upon to
Accountability of Public Officers (Blue Ribbon Committee). 5Thereafter,
the Senate determine the proper allocation of powers between
Blue Ribbon Committee started its investigation on the matter. the several departments and among the integral or
Petitioners and Ricardo Lopa were subpoenaed by the constituent units thereof.
Committee to appear before it and testify on "what they know"
regarding the "sale of thirty-six (36) corporations belonging to
xxx xxx xxx
Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez."

The Constitution is a definition of the powers of

At the hearing held on 23 May 1989, Ricardo Lopa declined to
government. Who is to determine the nature, scope
testify on the ground that his testimony may "unduly prejudice"
and extent of such powers? The Constitution itself
the defendants in Civil Case No. 0035 before the Sandiganbayan.
has provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary
Petitioner Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr. likewise refused to testify
as the rational way. And when the judiciary mediates
involing his constitutional right to due process, and averring
to allocate constitutional boundaries; it does not
that the publicity generated by respondents Committee's
assert any superiority over the other departments; it
inquiry could adversely affect his rights as well as those of the
does not inr eality nullify or invalidate an act of the
other petitioners who are his co-defendants in Civil Case No.
legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred
0035 before the Sandiganbayan.
obligation assigned to it by tyhe Constitution to
determine conflicting claims of authority under the
The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, thereupon, suspended its Constitution and to established for the parties in an
inquiry and directed the petitioners to file their memorandum actual controversy the rights which that instrument
on the constitutional issues raised, after which, it issued a secures and guarantess to them. This is in thruth all
resolution 6 dated 5 June 1989 rejecting the petitioner's plea to that is involved in what is termed "judicial
be excused from testifying, and the Committee voted to pursue supremacy" which properly is the power of judicial
and continue its investigation of the matter. Senator Neptali review under the Constitution. Even the, this power
Gonzales dissented. 7 of judicial review is limited to actual cases and
controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of
argument by the parties, and limited further to the
constitutional question raised or the very lis
mota presented. Any attempt at abstraction could
Claiming that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is poised to subpoena them and required their only lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and
attendance and testimony in proceedings before the Committee, in excess of its jurisdiction and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities.
legislative purpose, in clear and blatant disregard of their constitutional rights, and to their grave and Narrowed as its function is in this manner, the
irreparable damager, prejudice and injury, and that there is no appeal nor any other plain, speedy and judiciary does not pass upon questions of wisdom,
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the petitioners filed the present petition for prohibition justice or expediency of legislation. More thatn that,
with a prayer for temporary restraning order and/or injunctive relief. courts accord the presumption of constitutionality to
legislative enactments, not only because the
legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution
but also becuase the judiciary in the determination of
actual cases and controversies must reflect the
Meanwhile, one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 0035 before the Sandiganbayan, Jose S. Sandejas, wisdom and justice of the people as expressed
which the Court granted in the
filed with the Court of motion for intervention, 8 through their representatives in the executive and
resolution 9 of 21 December 1989, and required the respondent legislative departments of the government.
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to comment on the petition in
The "allocation of constituional boundaries" is a task that this Mr. President, I rise this afternnon on a matter of
Court must perfomr under the Constitution. Moreowever, as personal privilege; the privilege being that I received,
held in a recent case, 12 "(t)he political question doctrine neither Mr. President, a letter dated September 4, 1988,
interposes an obstacle to judicial determination of the rival signed by Mr. ricardo A. Lopa, a.k.a. or Baby Lopa,
claims. The jurisdiction to delimit constitutional boundaries has wherein he denied categorically that he has taken
been given to this Court. It cannot abdicate that obligation over the First Manila Management Group of
mandated by the 1987 Constitution, although said provision by Companies which includes SOLOIL Incorporated.
no means does away with kthe applicability of the principle in
appropriate cases." 13
xxx xxxx xxx

In answer to Mr. Lopa, I will quote pertinent portions

from an Official Memorandum to the Presidential
The Court is thus of the considered view that it has jurisdiction over the present controversy for the Commission of Good Government written and signed
purpose of determining the scope and extent of the power of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to by former Governor, now Congressman Jose Ramirez,
conduct inquiries into private affirs in purported aid of legislation. in his capacity as head of the PCGG Task Force for
Region VIII. In his memorandum dated July 3, 1986,
Coming to the specific issues raised in this case, petitioners contend that (1) the Senate Blue Ribbon then Governor Ramirez stated that when he and the
Committee's inquiry has no valid legislative purpose, i.e., it is not done in aid of legislation; (2) the sale members of his task force sought to serve a
or disposition of hte Romualdez corporations is a "purely private transaction" which is beyond the sequestration order on the management of SOLOIL in
power of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to inquire into; and (3) the inquiry violates their right to
Tanauan, Leyte, management officials assured him
due process. that relatives of the President of the Philippines were
personally discussing and representing SOLOIL so
that the order of sequestration would be lifted and
that the new owner was Mr. Ricardo A. Lopa.

The 1987 Constition expressly recognizes the power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries I will quote the pertinent portions in the Ramire's
in aid of legislation. 14 Thus, Section 21, Article VI thereof provides: memorandum.

The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of The first paragraph of the memorandum reads as
its respective committee may conduct inquiries in aid follows and I quote, Mr. President:
of legislation in accordance with its duly published
rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing
"Our sequestration work of SOLOIL in
in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. 15
Tanauan, Leyte was not heeded by
management because they said another
representation was being made to this
Commission for the ventual lifting of our
The power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not, therefore, sequestrationorder. They even assured us
absolute or unlimited. Its exercise is circumscribed by the afore-quoted provision of the Constitution. that Mr. Ricardo Lopa and Peping
Thus, as provided therein, the investigation must be "in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly Cojunangco were personally discussing
published rules of procedure" and that "the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries and representing SOLOIL, so the order of
shall be respected." It follows then that the rights of persons under the Bill of Rights must be respected, sequestration will finally be lifted. While
including the right to due process and the right not to be compelled to testify against one's self. we attempted to carry on our order,
management refused to cooperate and
vehemently turned down our request to
The power to conduct formal inquiries or investigations in specifically provided for in Sec. 1 of make available to us the records of the
the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation. Such inquiries may refer to the company. In fact it was obviously clear that
implementation or re-examination of any law or in connection with any proposed legislation or the they will meet us with forcethe moment
formulation of future legislation. They may also extend to any and all matters vested by the we insist on doing normally our assigned
Constitution in Congress and/or in the Seante alone. task. In view of the impending threat, and
to avoid any untoward incident we
decided to temporarily suspend our work
until there is a more categorical stand of
this Commission in view of the seemingly
the inquiry, to be within the
As held in Jean L. Arnault vs. Leon Nazareno, et al., 16 influential represetation being made by
jurisdiction of the legislative body making it, must be material SOLOIL for us not to continue our work."
or necessary to the exervise of a power in it vested by the
Constitution, such as to legislate or to expel a member.
Another pertinent portion of the same memorandum
is paragraph five, which reads as follows, and I quote
Under Sec. 4 of the aforementioned Rules, the Senate may refer Mr. President:
to any committee or committees any speech or resolution filed
by any Senator which in tis judgment requires an appropriate
"The President, Mr. Gamboa, this is, I
inquiry in aid of legislation. In order therefore to ascertain the
understand, the President of SOLOIL, and
character or nature of an inquiry, resort must be had to the
the Plant Superintendent, Mr. Jimenez
speech or resolution under which such an inquiry is proposed
including their chief counsel, Atty.
to be made.
Mandong Mendiola are now saying that
there have been divestment, and that the
A perusal of the speech of Senator Enrile reveals that he new owner is now Mr. Ricardo Lopa who
(Senator Enrile) made a statement which was published in according to them, is the brother-in-law of
various newspapers on 2 September 1988 accusing Mr. Ricardo the President. They even went further by
"Baby" Lopa of "having taken over the FMMC Group of telling us that even Peping Cojuangco who
Companies." As a consequence thereof, Mr. Lopa wrote a letter we know is the brother of her excellency is
to Senator Enrile on 4 September 1988 categorically denying also interested in the ownership and
that he had "taken over " the FMMC Group of Companies; that management of SOLOIL. When he
former PCGG Chairman Ramon Diaz himself categorically stated demanded for supporting papers which
in a telecast interview by Mr. Luis Beltran on Channel 7 on 31 will indicate aforesaid divestment, Messrs.
August 1988 that there has been no takeover by him (Lopa); and Gamboa, Jimenez and Mendiola refused
that theses repeated allegations of a "takeover" on his (Lopa's) vehemently to submit these papers to us,
part of FMMC are baseless as they are malicious. instead they said it will be submitted
directly to this Commission. To our mind
their continuous dropping of names is not
The Lopa reply prompted Senator Enrile, during the session of
good for this Commission and even to the
the Senate on 13 September 1988, to avail of the privilege
President if our dersire is to achieve
hour, 17 so that he could repond to the said Lopa letter, and also
respectability and stability of the
to vindicate his reputation as a Member of the Senate of the
government."
Philippines, considering the claim of Mr. Lopa that his (Enrile's)
charges that he (Lopa) had taken over the FMMC Group of
Companies are "baseless" and "malicious." Thus, in his The contents of the memorandum of then Governor
speech, 18Senator Enrile said, among others, as follows: and now Congressman Jose Ramirez were personally
 confirmed by him in a news interview last September WHEREAS, recent developments have shown that no
7, 1988. less than the Solicitor-General has stated that the
PCGG Chairman and at least three Commissioners
should resign and that the agency should rid itself of
xxx xxxx xxx
"ineptness, incompetence and corruption" and that
the Sandiganbayan has reportedly ordered the PCGG
Also relevant to this case, Mr. President, is a letter of to answer charges filed by three stockholders of
Mr. Ricardo Lopa himself in August 11, 1988 issue of Oriental Petroleum that it has adopted a "get-rich-
the newspaper Malaya headlined "On Alleged quick scheme" for its nominee-directors in a
Takeover of Romualdez Firms." sequestered oil exploration firm;

Mr. Lopa states in the last paragraph of the published WHEREAS, leaders of school youth, community
letter and I quote him: groups and youth of non-governmental organization
had made representations to the Senate Committee
on Youth and Sports Development to look into the
12. As of this writing, the sales agreement
charges against the PCGG since said agency is a
is under review by the PCGG solely to
symbol of the changes expected by the people when
determine the appropriate price. The sale
the EDSA revolution took place and that the ill-gotten
of these companies and our prior rigtht to
wealth to be recovered will fund priority projects
requires them have never been at issue.
which will benefit our people such as CARP, free
education in the elementary and secondary levels
Perhaps I could not make it any clearer to Mr. Lopa reforestration, and employment generation for rural
that I was not really making baseless and malicious and urban workers;
statements.
WHEREAS, the government and the present
Senator Enrile concluded his privilege speech in the following leadeship must demonstrate in their public and
tenor: private lives integrity, honor and efficient
management of government services lest our youth
become disillusioned and lose hope and return to an
Mr. President, it may be worthwhile for the Senate to
Idelogy and form of government which is repugnant
look into the possible violation of the law in the case
to true freedom, democratic participation and human
particularly with regard to Republic Act No. 3019, the
rights: Now, therefore, be it.
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Section 5 of
which reads as follows and I quote:
Resolved by the Senate, That the activities of the
Presidential Commission on Good Government be
Sec. 5. Prohibition on certain relatives. —
investigated by the appropriate Committee in
It shall be unlawful for the spouse or for
connection with the implementation of Section 26,
nay relative, by consanguinity or affinity,
Article XVIII of the Constitution. 19
within the third civil degree, of the
President of the Philippines, the Vice-
President of the Philippines, the President
of the Senate, or the Speaker of the House
of Representatives, to intervene directly or Thus, the inquiry under Senate Resolution No. 212 is to look into the charges against the PCGG filed by
indirectly, in any business, transaction, the three (3) stockholders of Oriental Petroleum in connection with the implementation of Section 26,
contract or application with the Article XVIII of the Constitution.
Government: Provided, that this section
shall not apply to any person who prior to
the assumption of office of any of the above It cannot, therefore, be said that the contemplated inquiry on the subject of the privilege speech of

officials to whom he is related, has been Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, i.e., the alleged sale of the 36 (or 39) corporations belonging to Benjamin

already dealing with the Government "Kokoy" Romualdez to the Lopa Group is to be conducted pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 212

along the same line of business, nor to any because, firstly, Senator Enrile did not indict the PCGG, and, secondly, neither Mr. Ricardo Lopa nor the

transaction, contract or application filed herein petitioners are connected with the government but are private citizens.

by him for approval of which is not

discretionary on the part of the officials
concerned but depends upon compliance
with requisites provided by law, nor to any
act lawfully performed in an official It appeals, therefore, that the contemplated inquiry by respondent Committee is not really "in aid of

capacity or in the exercise of a profession. legislation" becuase it is not related to a purpose within the jurisdiction of Congress, since the aim of
the investigation is to find out whether or not the ralatives of the President or Mr. Ricardo Lopa had
violated Section 5 RA No. 3019, the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act", a matter that appears more
Mr. President, I have done duty to this Senate and to within the province of the courts rather than of the legislature. Besides, the Court may take judicial
myself. I leave it to this august Body to make its own notice that Mr. Ricardo Lopa died during the pendency of this case. In John T. Watkins vs. United
conclusion. States, 20 it was held held:

Verily, the speech of Senator Enrile contained no suggestion of

... The power of congress to conduct investigations in
contemplated legislation; he merely called upon the Senate to
inherent in the legislative process. That power is
look into a possible violation of Sec. 5 of RA No. 3019, otherwise
broad. it encompasses inquiries concerning the
known as "The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act." I other
administration of existing laws as well as proposed,
words, the purpose of the inquiry to be conducted by
or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of
respondent Blue Ribbon commitee was to find out whether or
defects in our social,economic, or political system for
not the relatives of President Aquino, particularly Mr. ricardo
the purpose of enabling Congress to remedy them. It
Lopa, had violated the law in connection with the alleged sale of
comprehends probes into departments of the Federal
the 36 or 39 corporations belonging to Benjamin "Kokoy"
Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or
Romualdez to the Lopaa Group. There appears to be, therefore,
waste. But broad asis this power of inquiry, it is not
no intended legislation involved.
unlimited. There is no general authority to expose the
private affairs ofindividuals without justification in
The Court is also not impressed with the respondent terms of the functions of congress. This was freely
Committee's argument that the questioned inquiry is to be conceded by Solicitor General in his argument in this
conducted pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 212. The said case. Nor is the Congress a law enforcement or trial
resolution was introduced by Senator Jose D. Lina in view of the agency. These are functions of the executive and
representaions made by leaders of school youth, community judicial departments of government. No inquiry is an
groups and youth of non-governmental organizations to the end in itself; it must be related to and in furtherance of
Senate Committee on Youth and Sports Development, to look a legitimate task of Congress. Investigations conducted
into the charges against the PCGG filed by three (3) stockholders soly for the personal aggrandizement of the
of Oriental petroleum, i.e., that it has adopted a "get-rich-quick investigators or to "punish" those investigated are
scheme" for its nominee-directors in a sequestered oil indefensible. (emphasis supplied)
exploration firm.The pertinent portion of Senate Resolution No.
212 reads as follows:
It can not be overlooked that when respondent Committee
decide to conduct its investigation of the petitioners, the
xxx xxx xxx complaint in Civil No. 0035 had already been filed with the
Sandiganbayan. A perusal of that complaint shows that one of its incrimination only when a question which tends to
principal causes of action against herein petitioners, as elicit an answer that will incriminate him is
defendants therein, is the alleged sale of the 36 (or 39) propounded to him. Clearly then, it is not the
corporations belonging to Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez. Since characeter of the suit involved but the nature of the
the issues in said complaint had long been joined by the filing of proceedings that controls. The privilege has
petitioner's respective answers thereto, the issue sought to be consistenly been held to extend to all proceedings
investigated by the respondent Commitee is one over which sanctioned by law and to all cases in which
jurisdiction had been acquired by the Sandiganbayan. In short, punishment is sought to be visited upon a witness,
the issue had been pre-empted by that court. To allow the whether a party or not.
respondent Committee to conduct its own investigation of an
issue already before the Sandiganbayan would not only pose the
We do not here modify these doctrines. If we presently rule that
possibility of conflicting judgments betweena legislative
petitioners may not be compelled by the respondent Committee
commitee and a judicial tribunal, but if the Committee's
to appear, testify and produce evidenc before it, it is only
judgment were to be reached before that of the Sandiganbayan,
becuase we hold that the questioned inquiry is not in aid of
the possibility of its influence being made to bear on the
legislation and, if pursued, would be violative of the principle of
ultimate judgment of the Sandiganbayan can not be discounted.
separation of powers between the legislative and the judicial
departments of government, ordained by the Constitution.
In fine, for the rspondent Committee to probe and inquire into
the same justiciable controversy already before the
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court holds that,
Sandiganbayan, would be an encroachment into the exclusive
under the facts, including the circumtance that petitioners are
domain of judicial jurisdiction that had much earlier set in.
presently impleaded as defendants in a case before the
In Baremblatt vs. United States, 21 it was held that:
Sandiganbayan, which involves issues intimately related to the
subject of contemplated inquiry before the respondet
Broad as it is, the power is not, howevern, without Committee, the respondent Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is
limitations. Since congress may only investigate into hereby enjoined from compelling the petitioners and intervenor
those areas in which it may potentially legislate or to testify before it and produce evidence at the said inquiry.
appropriate, it cannot inquire into matters which are
within the exclusive province of one of the other
SO ORDERED.
branches of the government. Lacking the judicial
power given to the Judiciary, it cannot inquire into
mattes that are exclusively the concern of the Fernan, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Feliciano, Bidin, Griño-Aquino,
Judiciary. Neither can it suplant the Executive in what Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr. and Romero, JJ., concur.
exclusively belongs to the Executive. ...

Now to another matter. It has been held that "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'." 22
Separate Opinions

In another case —

PARAS, J., concurring:

I concur principally because any decision of the respondent

... the mere semblance of legislative purpose would not justify an inquiry in the face
committee may unduly influence the Sandiganbayan
of the Bill of Rights. The critical element is the exeistence of, and the weight to be
ascribed to, the interest of the Congress in demanding disclosures from an unwilling GUTIERREZ, JR., J., dissenting:
witness. We cannot simply assume, however, that every congressional investigation
is justified by a public need that over-balances any private rights affected. To do so
would be to abdicate the responsibility placed by the Constitution upon the judiciary
I regret that I must express a strong dissent the Court's opinion
to insure that the Congress does not unjustifiably encroah upon an individual's right
in this case.
to privacy nor abridge his liberty of speech, press, religion or assembly. 23

The Court is asserting a power which I believe we do not

One of the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution to an individual is the right against self-
possess. We are encroaching on the turf of Congress. We are
prohibiting the Senate from proceeding with a consitutionally
Thir right constured as the right to remain
incrimination. 24
vested function. We are stopping the Senate Blue Ribbon
completely silent may be availed of by the accused in a criminal
Committee from exercising a legislative prerogative —
case; but kit may be invoked by other witnesses only as
investigations in aid of legislation. We do so becuase we
questions are asked of them.
somehow feel that the purported aim is not the real purpose.

This distinction was enunciated by the Court in Romeo Chavez

The Court has no power to second guess the motives behind an
vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al. 25thus —
act of a House of Congress. Neither can we substitute our
judgment for its judgment on a matter specifically given to it by
Petitioner, as accused, occupies a different tier of the Constitution. The scope of the legislative power is broad. it
protection from an ordinary witness. Whereas an emcompasses practically every aspect of human or corporate
ordinary witness may be compelled to take the behavior capable of regulation. How can this Court say that
witness stand and claim the privilege as each unraveling the tangled and secret skeins behind the acquisition
question requiring an incriminating answer is hot at by Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez of 39 corporations under the
him, an accused may altother refuse to take the past regime and their sudden sale to the Lopa Group at the
witness stand and refuse to answer any all questions. outset of the new dispensation will not result in useful
legislation?
Moreover, this right of the accused is extended to respondents
in administrative investigations but only if they partake of the The power of either House of Congress to conduct investigations
nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous to a criminal is inherent. It needs no textual grant. As stated in Arnault v.
proceeding. In Galman vs. Pamaran,26 the Court reiterated the Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29 (1950)
doctrine in Cabal vs. Kapuanan (6 SCRA 1059) to illustrate the
right of witnesses to invoke the right against self-incrimination
Our form of government being patterned after the
not only in criminal proceedings but also in all other types of suit
American system — the framers of our Constitution
having drawn largely from American institutions and
It was held that: practices — we can, in this case, properly draw also
from American precedents in interpreting analogous
provisions of our Constitution, as we have done in
We did not therein state that since he is not an
other cases in the past.
accused and the case is not a criminal case, Cabal
cannot refuse to take the witness stand and testify,
and that he can invoke his right against self-
 Although there is no provision in the Constitution It presumed that the action of the Senate was with a legitimate
expressly investing either House of Congress with object.
power to make investigations and exact testimony to
the end that it may exercise its legislative functions
... Plainly the subject was one on which legislation
advisely and effectively, such power is so far
could be had and would be materially aided by the
incidental to the legislative function as to be implied.
information which the investigation was calculated to
In other words, the power of inquiry — with process
elicit. This becomes manifest when it is reflected that
to enforce it — is an essential and appropriate
the functions of the Department of Justice, the powers
auxiliary to the legislative function. A legislative body
and duties of the Attorney-General and the duties of
cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of
his assitants, are all subject to regulation by
information respecting the conditions which the
congressional legislation, and that the department is
legislation is intended to affect or change: and where
maintained and its activitites are carried on under
the legislative body does not itself possess the
such appropriations as in the judgment of Congress
requisite information — which is not infrequently
are needed from year to year.
true — recourse must be had to others who do
possess it. ... (At p. 45)
The only legitimate object the Senate could have in
ordering the investigation was to aid it in legislating,
The framers of the present Constitution were not content to
and we think the subject was the real object. An
leave the power inherent, incidental or implied. The power is
express avowal of the object would have been better;
now expressed as follows:
but in view of the particular subject matter was not
indispenable. In People ex rel. Mc Donald v. Keeler,
Sec. 21 — The Senate or the House of Representatives 99, N.Y. 463, 52 Am. Rep. 49, 2 N.E. 615, where the
or may of its respective committees may conduct Court of Appeals of New york sustained an
inquiries in aid of legialtion in accordance with its investigation order by the House of Representatives
duly published rules of precedure. The rights of of that state where the resolution contained no
persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries avowal, but disclosed that it definitely related to the
shall be respected. administrative of public office the duties of which
were subject to legislative regulation, the court said
(pp. 485, 487): Where public institutions under the
Apart from the formal requirement of publishing the rules of
control of the State are ordered to be investigated, it
procedure, I agree that there are three queries which, if
is generally with the view of some legislative action
answered in the affirmative, may give us cause to intervene.
respecting them, and the same may be said in respect
of public officers,' And again "We are bound to
First, is the matter being investigated one on which no valid presume that the action of the legislative body was
legislation could possibly be enacted? with a legitimate object if it is capable of being so
construed, and we have no right to assume that the
contrary was intended." (McGrain v. Daugherty Id., at
Second, is Congress encroaching on terrain which the
page 594-595, Emphasis supplied)
Constitution has reserved as the exclusive domain of another
branch of government?
The American Court was more categorical in United States v.
Josephson, 333 U.S. 858 (1938). It declared that declaration of
And third, is Congress violating the basic liberties of an
legislative purpose was conclusive on the Courts:
individual?

Whatever may be said of the Committee on the un-

The classic formulation of the power of the Court to interpret
American activities, its authorizing resolution recites
the meaning of "in aid of legislation" is expressed in Kilbourn v.
it is in aid of legislation and that fact is establshed for
Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880).
courts.

The House of Representatives passed a resolution creating a

And since the matter before us in somethingwe inherited from
committee to investigate the financial relations between Jay
the American constitutional system, rulings from the decision of
Cooke and Co., a depositary of federal funds and a real estate
federal courts may be apropos. (Stamler v. Willis, 287 F. Supp.
pool. A debtor of Jay Cooke and Co, Kilbourn, general manager
734 [1968]
of the pool refused to answer questions put to him by the
Committee and to produce certain book sna papers.
Consequently, he was ordered jailed for forty-five days. He The Court cannot probe into the motives of the
brought an action for false imprisonment and the Supreme members of the Congress.
Court decided in his favor.
Barsky v. United States, 167 F. 2d 241 [1948]
Speaking through Justice Miller, the Court ruled:
The measure of the power of inquiry is the
The resolution adopted as a sequence of this potentiality that constitutional legislation might
preamble contains no hint of any intention of final ensue from information derived from such inquiry.
action by Congress on the subject, In all the argument
of the case no suggestion has been made of what the
The possibility that invalid as well as valid legislation
House of Respresentatives or the Congress could
might ensue from an inquiry does not limit the power
have done in the way of remedying the wrong or
of inquiry, since invalid legislation might ensue from
securing the creditors of Jay Cooke and Co., or even
any inquiry.
the United States. Was it to be simply a fruitless
investigation into the personal affiars of individuals?
If so the House of Representatives had no power or United States v. Shelton, 148 F. Supp. 926 [1957]
authority in the matter more than any other equal
number of gentlemen interested for the government
The contention of the defendant that the hearing at
of their country. By fruitless we mean that it could
which he testified and from which the indictment
result in no valid legislation on the subject to which
arose was not in furtherance og a legislative purpose
the inquiry referrred. (Kilbourn v. Thompson, Id. at
proceeds on the assumption that a failure to have
page 388)
specific legislation in contemplation, or a failure to
show that legislation was in fact enacted, estabished
The Kilbourn decision is, however, crica 1880. The world has an absence of legislative purpose. This argument is
turned over many times since that era. The same court which patently unsound. The investigative power of
validated separate but equal facilities against of racial Congress is not subject to the limitation that hearings
discrimination and ruled that a private contract may bar must result in legislation or recommendations for
improved labor standards and social justice legislation has legislation.
reversed itslef on these and many other questions.
United States v. Deutch (147 F. Supp. 89 (1956)
In McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135; 71 L. Ed. 580 [1927], the
court went beyond the express terms of the Senate resolution
Under the Constitution of the U.S., the Federal
directing the investigation of a former Attorney General for non-
Government is a government of limited powers. The
feasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance in office.
 Congress, being the legislative branch of the Federal go further. The aim is to arrive at policy determinations which
Government, is also clothed with limited legislative may or may not be enacted into legislation. Referral to
powers. In orders, however, to carry its legislative prosecutors or courts of justice is an added bonus. For sure, the
powers into effect successfully, it has always been Senate Blue Ribbon Committee knows it cannot sentence any
held that Congress has the power to secure offender, no matter how overwhelming the proof that it may
information concerning matters in respect to which it gatherm to a jail term. But certainly, the Committee can
has the authority to legislate. In fact, it would seem recommend to Congress how the situation which enabled get-
that Congress must secure information in order to rich-quick schemes to flourish may be remedied. The fact that
legislate intelligently. Beyond that, the Congress has the subject of the investigation may currently be undergoing
the right secure information in order to determine trial does not restrict the power of Congress to investigate for
whether or not to legislate on a particular subject its own purposes. The legislative purpose is distinctly different
matter on which it is within its constitutional powers from the judicial purpose.
to act. — (Emphasis Supplied)
In Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 73 L ed. 692 (1928),
The even broader scope of legislative investigation in the leases of naval reservations to oil companies were investigated
Philippine context is explained by a member of the by the United States Senate. On a finding that certain leases were
Constitutional Commission. fraudulent, court action was recommended. In other words,
court action on one hand and legislation on the other, are not
mutually exclusive. They may complement each other.
The requirement that the investigation be "in aid of
legislation" is an essential element for establishing
the jurisdiction of the legislative body. It is, however, ... It may be conceded that Congress is without
a requirement which is not difficult to satisfy becuase, authority to compel disclosyres for the purpose of
unlike in the United States, where legislative power is aiding the prosecution of pending suits; but the
shared by the United State Congress and the states authority of that body, directly or through it
legislatures, the totality of legislative power is Committees, to require pertinent disclosures in aid of
possessed by the Congress nad its legislative field is its own consitutional power is not abridged because
well-nigh unlimited. "It would be difficult to define the information sought to be elicited may also be of
any limits by which the subject matter of its inquiry use in such suits... It is plain that investigation of the
can be bounded." (Supra, at p. 46) Moreover, it is not matters involved in suits brought or to be
necessary that every question propounded to a commenced under the Senate resolution directing
witness must be material to a proposed legislation. the institution of suits for the cancellation of the
"In other words, the materiality of the question must leases might directly aid in respect of legislative
be determined by its direct relation to the subject of action... (Sinclair v. United States, Id.at page 698).
the inquiry and not by its indirect relation to any
proposed or possible legislation. The reason is that
In United States v. Orman, 207 F. 2d Ed. 148 (1953), the court
the necessity or lack of necessity for legislative action
declared that it was pertinent for a legislative committee to seek
and form and character of the action itself are
facts indicating that a witness was linked to unlawful intestate
determined by the sum total of the information to be
gambling.
gathered as a result of the investigation, and not by a
fraction to be gathered as a result of the investigation,
and not by a fraction of such information elicited from The power of a congressional committee to
a single question. (Id., at 48) investigate matters cannot be challenged on the
ground that the Committee went beyond the scope of
any contemplated legislative and assumed the
On the basis of this interpretation of what "in aid of
functions of a grand jury. Whre the genral subject of
legislation" means, it can readily be seen that the
investigation is one concerning which Congress can
phrase contributes practically nothing towards
legislate, and the information sought might aid the
protecting witnesses. Practically any investigation
congressional consideration, in such a situation a
can be in aid of the broad legislative power of
legitimate legislative purpose must be presumed...
Congress. The limitation, therefore cannot effectively
prevent what Kilbourn v. Thompson (103 U.S. 168
[1880]) characterized as "roving commissions" or I submit that the filing of indictments or informations or the trial
what Watkins v. United States (354 U.S. 178, 200 of certain persons cannot, by themselves, half the intitiation or
[1957] labeled as exposure for the sake of exposure. stop the progress of legislative investigations.
(Bernas, Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, Vol. II, 1st Ed., page 132).
The other ground which I consider the more important one is
where the legislative investigation violates the liberties of the
Applying the above principles to the present casem, it can witnesses.
readily be seen that the Senate is investigating an area where it
may potentially legislate. The ease with which relatives of the
The Constitution expressly provides that "the rights of persons
President were allegedly able to amass great wealth under the
appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
past regime is a legitimate area of inquiry. And if we tack on the
alleged attempts o f relatives of a succeeding adminsitration to
duplicate the feat, the need for remedial legislation becomes It should be emphasized that the constitutional restriction does
more imperative. not call for the banning or prohibition of investigations where a
violation of a basis rights is claimed. It only requires that in the
course of the proceedings, the right of persons should
Our second area of concern is congressional encroachment on
be respected.
matters reserved by the Constitution for the Executive or the
Judiciary.
What the majority opinion mandates is a blanket prohibition
against a witness testifying at all, simply because he is already
The majority opinion cites the decision in Angara v. Electoral
facing charges before the Sandiganbayan. To my mind, the
Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936) explaining our power to
Consitution allows him to interpose objections whenever an
determined conflicting claims of authority. It is indeed the
incriminating question is posed or when he is compelled to
function on this Court to allocate constitutional boundaries but
reveal his ocurt defenses, but not ot refuse to take the witness
in the exercise of this "umpire" function we have to take care
stand completely.
that we do not keep any of the three great departments of
government from performing functions peculiar to each
department or specifically vested to it sby the Constitution. Arnault v. Nazareno, supra, illustrates the reticence, with which
When a power is vested, ti carries with is everything the court views petitions to curtail legislative investigations
legitimately neede to exercise it. even where an invocation of individual liberties is made.

It may be argued that the investigation into the Romualdez — In Arnault, the entire country already knew the name of the
Lopa transactions is more appropriate for the Department of presidential realtive whom the Sentate was trying to link to the
Justice and the judiciary. This argument misses the point of Tambobong-Buenavista estate anomalies. Still, the Court did not
legislative inquiry. interfere when Arnault refused to answer specific questions
directed at him and he was punished for hir refusal. The Court
did not restrain the Senate when Arnault was sent o the national
The prosecution of offenders by the Department of Justice or the
penitentiary for an indefinite visit until the name which the
Ombudsman and their trial before courts of justice is intended
Senate wanted him to utter was extracted. Only when the
to punish persons who violate the law. Legislative investigations
imprisonment became ureasonably prolonged and the situation incrimination only when and as the incriminating question is
in Congress had changed was he released. propounded.

As pointed out by the respondents, not one question has been While it is true that the Court is now allowed more leeway in
asked requiring an answer that would incriminate the reviewing the traditionally political acts of the legislative and
petitioners. The allegation that their basic rights are vilolated is executive departments, the power must be exercised with the
not only without basis but is also premature. utmost circumspection lest we unduly trench on their
prerogatives and disarrange the constitutional separation of
powers. That power is available to us only if there is a clear
I agree with the respondents that the slae of 39 Romualdez
showing of a grave abuse of discretion, which I do not see in the
corporations to Mr. Lopa is not a purely private transaction into
case at bar.
which the Senate may not inquire. if this were so, much of the
work of the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG) as it seeks to recover illegally acquired wealth would be Guided by the presumption and the facts, I vote to DISMISS the
negated. Much of what PCGG is trying to recover is the product petition.
of arrangements which are not only private but also secret and
hidden.
Narvasa, J., dissents.

I therefore, vote to DISMISS the petition.

# Separate Opinions

Narvasa, J., dissents.

PARAS, J., concurring:

CRUZ, J., dissenting:

I concur principally because any decision of the respondent
committee may unduly influence the Sandiganbayan
I regret I am unable to give my concurrence, I do not agree that
the investigation being conducted by the Blue Ribbon
GUTIERREZ, JR., J., dissenting:
Committee is not in aid of legislation.

I regret that I must express a strong dissent the Court's opinion

In Arnault v. Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29, this Court observed that "we
in this case.
are bound to presume that the action of the legislative body was
with a legitimate object if it is capable of being so construed, and
we have no right ot assume that the contrary was intended." The Court is asserting a power which I believe we do not
(People ex rel. Mc Donald vs. Keeler, 99 N.Y. 463; 52 Am. Rep., possess. We are encroaching on the turf of Congress. We are
49; 2 N.E., 615, quoted with approval by the U.S. Supreme Court prohibiting the Senate from proceeding with a consitutionally
in McGrain vs. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135). As far as I know, that is vested function. We are stopping the Senate Blue Ribbon
still the rule today. Committee from exercising a legislative prerogative —
investigations in aid of legislation. We do so becuase we
somehow feel that the purported aim is not the real purpose.
More importantly, the presumption is supported by the
established facts. The inquiry is sustainable as an implied of
power the legislature and even as expressly limited by the The Court has no power to second guess the motives behind an
Constitution. act of a House of Congress. Neither can we substitute our
judgment for its judgment on a matter specifically given to it by
the Constitution. The scope of the legislative power is broad. it
The inquiry deals with alleged manipulations of public funds
emcompasses practically every aspect of human or corporate
and illicit acquisitions of properties now being claimed by the
behavior capable of regulation. How can this Court say that
PCGG for the Republic of the Philippines. The purpose of the
unraveling the tangled and secret skeins behind the acquisition
Committee is to ascertain if and how such anomalies have been
by Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez of 39 corporations under the
committed. It is settled that the legislature has a right to
past regime and their sudden sale to the Lopa Group at the
investigate the disposition of the public funds it has
outset of the new dispensation will not result in useful
appropriated; indeed, "an inquiry into the expenditure of all
legislation?
public money is na indispensable duty of the legislature."
Moreover, an investigation of a possible violation of a law may
be useful in the drafting of amendatory legislation to correct or The power of either House of Congress to conduct investigations
strengthen that law. is inherent. It needs no textual grant. As stated in Arnault v.
Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29 (1950)
The ponencia quotes lengthily from Senator Enrile's speech and
concludes that it "contained no suggestions of contemplated Our form of government being patterned after the
legislation; he merely called upon the Senate to look into a American system — the framers of our Constitution
possible violation of section 5 of R.A. No. 3019." However, having drawn largely from American institutions and
according to McGrain v. Daugherty, supra: practices — we can, in this case, properly draw also
from American precedents in interpreting analogous
provisions of our Constitution, as we have done in
Primarily, the purpose for which legislative inquiry
other cases in the past.
and investigation is pursued is to serve as an aid in
legislation. Through it, the legislature is able to obtain
facts or data in aid fo proposed legislation. Although there is no provision in the Constitution
However, it is not necessary that the resolution expressly investing either House of Congress with
ordering an investigation should in terms expressly power to make investigations and exact testimony to
state that the object of the inquiry is to obtain data in the end that it may exercise its legislative functions
aid of proposed legislation. It is enough that such advisely and effectively, such power is so far
purpose appears from a consideration of the entire incidental to the legislative function as to be implied.
proceedings or one in which legislation could be had In other words, the power of inquiry — with process
and would be materially aided by the information to enforce it — is an essential and appropriate
which the investigation was calculated to elicit. An auxiliary to the legislative function. A legislative body
express avowal of the object would be better, but such cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of
is not indispensable. (Emphasis supplied). information respecting the conditions which the
legislation is intended to affect or change: and where
the legislative body does not itself possess the
The petitioner's contention that the questioned investigation
requisite information — which is not infrequently
would compel them to reveal their defense in the cases now
true — recourse must be had to others who do
pending against them in the Sandigangbayan is untenable. They
possess it. ... (At p. 45)
know or should know that they cannot be compelled to answer
incriminating questions. The case of Chavez v. Court of
Appeals, 24 SCRA 663, where we held that an accused may The framers of the present Constitution were not content to
refuse at the outset to take the stand on the ground that the leave the power inherent, incidental or implied. The power is
questions to be put by the prosecutor will tend to incriminate now expressed as follows:
him is, of course, not applicable to them. They are not facing
criminal charges before the Blue Ribbon Committee. Like any
Sec. 21 — The Senate or the House of Representatives
ordinary witness, they can invoke the right against self-
or may of its respective committees may conduct
 inquiries in aid of legialtion in accordance with its investigation order by the House of Representatives
duly published rules of precedure. The rights of of that state where the resolution contained no
persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries avowal, but disclosed that it definitely related to the
shall be respected. administrative of public office the duties of which
were subject to legislative regulation, the court said
(pp. 485, 487): Where public institutions under the
Apart from the formal requirement of publishing the rules of
control of the State are ordered to be investigated, it
procedure, I agree that there are three queries which, if
is generally with the view of some legislative action
answered in the affirmative, may give us cause to intervene.
respecting them, and the same may be said in respect
of public officers,' And again "We are bound to
First, is the matter being investigated one on which no valid presume that the action of the legislative body was
legislation could possibly be enacted? with a legitimate object if it is capable of being so
construed, and we have no right to assume that the
contrary was intended." (McGrain v. Daugherty Id., at
Second, is Congress encroaching on terrain which the
page 594-595, Emphasis supplied)
Constitution has reserved as the exclusive domain of another
branch of government?
The American Court was more categorical in United States v.
Josephson, 333 U.S. 858 (1938). It declared that declaration of
And third, is Congress violating the basic liberties of an
legislative purpose was conclusive on the Courts:
individual?

Whatever may be said of the Committee on the un-

The classic formulation of the power of the Court to interpret
American activities, its authorizing resolution recites
the meaning of "in aid of legislation" is expressed in Kilbourn v.
it is in aid of legislation and that fact is establshed for
Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880).
courts.

The House of Representatives passed a resolution creating a

And since the matter before us in somethingwe inherited from
committee to investigate the financial relations between Jay
the American constitutional system, rulings from the decision of
Cooke and Co., a depositary of federal funds and a real estate
federal courts may be apropos. (Stamler v. Willis, 287 F. Supp.
pool. A debtor of Jay Cooke and Co, Kilbourn, general manager
734 [1968]
of the pool refused to answer questions put to him by the
Committee and to produce certain book sna papers.
Consequently, he was ordered jailed for forty-five days. He The Court cannot probe into the motives of the
brought an action for false imprisonment and the Supreme members of the Congress.
Court decided in his favor.
Barsky v. United States, 167 F. 2d 241 [1948]
Speaking through Justice Miller, the Court ruled:
The measure of the power of inquiry is the
The resolution adopted as a sequence of this potentiality that constitutional legislation might
preamble contains no hint of any intention of final ensue from information derived from such inquiry.
action by Congress on the subject, In all the argument
of the case no suggestion has been made of what the
The possibility that invalid as well as valid legislation
House of Respresentatives or the Congress could
might ensue from an inquiry does not limit the power
have done in the way of remedying the wrong or
of inquiry, since invalid legislation might ensue from
securing the creditors of Jay Cooke and Co., or even
any inquiry.
the United States. Was it to be simply a fruitless
investigation into the personal affiars of individuals?
If so the House of Representatives had no power or United States v. Shelton, 148 F. Supp. 926 [1957]
authority in the matter more than any other equal
number of gentlemen interested for the government
The contention of the defendant that the hearing at
of their country. By fruitless we mean that it could
which he testified and from which the indictment
result in no valid legislation on the subject to which
arose was not in furtherance og a legislative purpose
the inquiry referrred. (Kilbourn v. Thompson, Id. at
proceeds on the assumption that a failure to have
page 388)
specific legislation in contemplation, or a failure to
show that legislation was in fact enacted, estabished
The Kilbourn decision is, however, crica 1880. The world has an absence of legislative purpose. This argument is
turned over many times since that era. The same court which patently unsound. The investigative power of
validated separate but equal facilities against of racial Congress is not subject to the limitation that hearings
discrimination and ruled that a private contract may bar must result in legislation or recommendations for
improved labor standards and social justice legislation has legislation.
reversed itslef on these and many other questions.
United States v. Deutch (147 F. Supp. 89 (1956)
In McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135; 71 L. Ed. 580 [1927], the
court went beyond the express terms of the Senate resolution
Under the Constitution of the U.S., the Federal
directing the investigation of a former Attorney General for non-
Government is a government of limited powers. The
feasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance in office.
Congress, being the legislative branch of the Federal
It presumed that the action of the Senate was with a legitimate
Government, is also clothed with limited legislative
object.
powers. In orders, however, to carry its legislative
powers into effect successfully, it has always been
... Plainly the subject was one on which legislation held that Congress has the power to secure
could be had and would be materially aided by the information concerning matters in respect to which it
information which the investigation was calculated to has the authority to legislate. In fact, it would seem
elicit. This becomes manifest when it is reflected that that Congress must secure information in order to
the functions of the Department of Justice, the powers legislate intelligently. Beyond that, the Congress has
and duties of the Attorney-General and the duties of the right secure information in order to determine
his assitants, are all subject to regulation by whether or not to legislate on a particular subject
congressional legislation, and that the department is matter on which it is within its constitutional powers
maintained and its activitites are carried on under to act. — (Emphasis Supplied)
such appropriations as in the judgment of Congress
are needed from year to year.
The even broader scope of legislative investigation in the
Philippine context is explained by a member of the
The only legitimate object the Senate could have in Constitutional Commission.
ordering the investigation was to aid it in legislating,
and we think the subject was the real object. An
The requirement that the investigation be "in aid of
express avowal of the object would have been better;
legislation" is an essential element for establishing
but in view of the particular subject matter was not
the jurisdiction of the legislative body. It is, however,
indispenable. In People ex rel. Mc Donald v. Keeler,
a requirement which is not difficult to satisfy becuase,
99, N.Y. 463, 52 Am. Rep. 49, 2 N.E. 615, where the
unlike in the United States, where legislative power is
Court of Appeals of New york sustained an
 shared by the United State Congress and the states authority of that body, directly or through it
legislatures, the totality of legislative power is Committees, to require pertinent disclosures in aid of
possessed by the Congress nad its legislative field is its own consitutional power is not abridged because
well-nigh unlimited. "It would be difficult to define the information sought to be elicited may also be of
any limits by which the subject matter of its inquiry use in such suits... It is plain that investigation of the
can be bounded." (Supra, at p. 46) Moreover, it is not matters involved in suits brought or to be
necessary that every question propounded to a commenced under the Senate resolution directing
witness must be material to a proposed legislation. the institution of suits for the cancellation of the
"In other words, the materiality of the question must leases might directly aid in respect of legislative
be determined by its direct relation to the subject of action... (Sinclair v. United States, Id.at page 698).
the inquiry and not by its indirect relation to any
proposed or possible legislation. The reason is that
In United States v. Orman, 207 F. 2d Ed. 148 (1953), the court
the necessity or lack of necessity for legislative action
declared that it was pertinent for a legislative committee to seek
and form and character of the action itself are
facts indicating that a witness was linked to unlawful intestate
determined by the sum total of the information to be
gambling.
gathered as a result of the investigation, and not by a
fraction to be gathered as a result of the investigation,
and not by a fraction of such information elicited from The power of a congressional committee to
a single question. (Id., at 48) investigate matters cannot be challenged on the
ground that the Committee went beyond the scope of
any contemplated legislative and assumed the
On the basis of this interpretation of what "in aid of
functions of a grand jury. Whre the genral subject of
legislation" means, it can readily be seen that the
investigation is one concerning which Congress can
phrase contributes practically nothing towards
legislate, and the information sought might aid the
protecting witnesses. Practically any investigation
congressional consideration, in such a situation a
can be in aid of the broad legislative power of
legitimate legislative purpose must be presumed...
Congress. The limitation, therefore cannot effectively
prevent what Kilbourn v. Thompson (103 U.S. 168
[1880]) characterized as "roving commissions" or I submit that the filing of indictments or informations or the trial
what Watkins v. United States (354 U.S. 178, 200 of certain persons cannot, by themselves, half the intitiation or
[1957] labeled as exposure for the sake of exposure. stop the progress of legislative investigations.
(Bernas, Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, Vol. II, 1st Ed., page 132).
The other ground which I consider the more important one is
where the legislative investigation violates the liberties of the
Applying the above principles to the present casem, it can witnesses.
readily be seen that the Senate is investigating an area where it
may potentially legislate. The ease with which relatives of the
The Constitution expressly provides that "the rights of persons
President were allegedly able to amass great wealth under the
appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
past regime is a legitimate area of inquiry. And if we tack on the
alleged attempts o f relatives of a succeeding adminsitration to
duplicate the feat, the need for remedial legislation becomes It should be emphasized that the constitutional restriction does
more imperative. not call for the banning or prohibition of investigations where a
violation of a basis rights is claimed. It only requires that in the
course of the proceedings, the right of persons should
Our second area of concern is congressional encroachment on
be respected.
matters reserved by the Constitution for the Executive or the
Judiciary.
What the majority opinion mandates is a blanket prohibition
against a witness testifying at all, simply because he is already
The majority opinion cites the decision in Angara v. Electoral
facing charges before the Sandiganbayan. To my mind, the
Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936) explaining our power to
Consitution allows him to interpose objections whenever an
determined conflicting claims of authority. It is indeed the
incriminating question is posed or when he is compelled to
function on this Court to allocate constitutional boundaries but
reveal his ocurt defenses, but not ot refuse to take the witness
in the exercise of this "umpire" function we have to take care
stand completely.
that we do not keep any of the three great departments of
government from performing functions peculiar to each
department or specifically vested to it sby the Constitution. Arnault v. Nazareno, supra, illustrates the reticence, with which
When a power is vested, ti carries with is everything the court views petitions to curtail legislative investigations
legitimately neede to exercise it. even where an invocation of individual liberties is made.

It may be argued that the investigation into the Romualdez — In Arnault, the entire country already knew the name of the
Lopa transactions is more appropriate for the Department of presidential realtive whom the Sentate was trying to link to the
Justice and the judiciary. This argument misses the point of Tambobong-Buenavista estate anomalies. Still, the Court did not
legislative inquiry. interfere when Arnault refused to answer specific questions
directed at him and he was punished for hir refusal. The Court
did not restrain the Senate when Arnault was sent o the national
The prosecution of offenders by the Department of Justice or the
penitentiary for an indefinite visit until the name which the
Ombudsman and their trial before courts of justice is intended
Senate wanted him to utter was extracted. Only when the
to punish persons who violate the law. Legislative investigations
imprisonment became ureasonably prolonged and the situation
go further. The aim is to arrive at policy determinations which
in Congress had changed was he released.
may or may not be enacted into legislation. Referral to
prosecutors or courts of justice is an added bonus. For sure, the
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee knows it cannot sentence any As pointed out by the respondents, not one question has been
offender, no matter how overwhelming the proof that it may asked requiring an answer that would incriminate the
gatherm to a jail term. But certainly, the Committee can petitioners. The allegation that their basic rights are vilolated is
recommend to Congress how the situation which enabled get- not only without basis but is also premature.
rich-quick schemes to flourish may be remedied. The fact that
the subject of the investigation may currently be undergoing
I agree with the respondents that the slae of 39 Romualdez
trial does not restrict the power of Congress to investigate for
corporations to Mr. Lopa is not a purely private transaction into
its own purposes. The legislative purpose is distinctly different
which the Senate may not inquire. if this were so, much of the
from the judicial purpose.
work of the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG) as it seeks to recover illegally acquired wealth would be
In Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 73 L ed. 692 (1928), negated. Much of what PCGG is trying to recover is the product
leases of naval reservations to oil companies were investigated of arrangements which are not only private but also secret and
by the United States Senate. On a finding that certain leases were hidden.
fraudulent, court action was recommended. In other words,
court action on one hand and legislation on the other, are not
I therefore, vote to DISMISS the petition.
mutually exclusive. They may complement each other.

Narvasa, J., dissents.

... It may be conceded that Congress is without
authority to compel disclosyres for the purpose of
aiding the prosecution of pending suits; but the CRUZ, J., dissenting:
I regret I am unable to give my concurrence, I do not agree that
the investigation being conducted by the Blue Ribbon
Committee is not in aid of legislation.

In Arnault v. Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29, this Court observed that "we

are bound to presume that the action of the legislative body was
with a legitimate object if it is capable of being so construed, and
we have no right ot assume that the contrary was intended."
(People ex rel. Mc Donald vs. Keeler, 99 N.Y. 463; 52 Am. Rep.,
49; 2 N.E., 615, quoted with approval by the U.S. Supreme Court
in McGrain vs. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135). As far as I know, that is
still the rule today.

More importantly, the presumption is supported by the

established facts. The inquiry is sustainable as an implied of
power the legislature and even as expressly limited by the
Constitution.

The inquiry deals with alleged manipulations of public funds

and illicit acquisitions of properties now being claimed by the
PCGG for the Republic of the Philippines. The purpose of the
Committee is to ascertain if and how such anomalies have been
committed. It is settled that the legislature has a right to
investigate the disposition of the public funds it has
appropriated; indeed, "an inquiry into the expenditure of all
public money is na indispensable duty of the legislature."
Moreover, an investigation of a possible violation of a law may
be useful in the drafting of amendatory legislation to correct or
strengthen that law.

The ponencia quotes lengthily from Senator Enrile's speech and

concludes that it "contained no suggestions of contemplated
legislation; he merely called upon the Senate to look into a
possible violation of section 5 of R.A. No. 3019." However,
according to McGrain v. Daugherty, supra:

Primarily, the purpose for which legislative inquiry

and investigation is pursued is to serve as an aid in
legislation. Through it, the legislature is able to obtain
facts or data in aid fo proposed legislation.
However, it is not necessary that the resolution
ordering an investigation should in terms expressly
state that the object of the inquiry is to obtain data in
aid of proposed legislation. It is enough that such
purpose appears from a consideration of the entire
proceedings or one in which legislation could be had
and would be materially aided by the information
which the investigation was calculated to elicit. An
express avowal of the object would be better, but such
is not indispensable. (Emphasis supplied).

The petitioner's contention that the questioned investigation

would compel them to reveal their defense in the cases now
pending against them in the Sandigangbayan is untenable. They
know or should know that they cannot be compelled to answer
incriminating questions. The case of Chavez v. Court of
Appeals, 24 SCRA 663, where we held that an accused may
refuse at the outset to take the stand on the ground that the
questions to be put by the prosecutor will tend to incriminate
him is, of course, not applicable to them. They are not facing
criminal charges before the Blue Ribbon Committee. Like any
ordinary witness, they can invoke the right against self-
incrimination only when and as the incriminating question is
propounded.

While it is true that the Court is now allowed more leeway in

reviewing the traditionally political acts of the legislative and
executive departments, the power must be exercised with the
utmost circumspection lest we unduly trench on their
prerogatives and disarrange the constitutional separation of
powers. That power is available to us only if there is a clear
showing of a grave abuse of discretion, which I do not see in the
case at bar.

Guided by the presumption and the facts, I vote to DISMISS the

petition.

Narvasa, J., dissents.