Title: Jose F.S. BENZON vs.

Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Date of Promulgation: 20 November 1991 Nature: Petition for prohibition to review the decision of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Ponente: Padilla, J. Facts: A petition for prohibition with prayer for issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or injunctive relief to enjoin respondent (Senate Blue Ribbon Committee) from requiring petitioners to testify and produce evidence at its inquiry into the alleged sale of equity of Benjamin Kokoy Romualdez to the Lopa Group in 36/39 corporations 30 July 1987: PCGG vs. Romualdez [Civil Case 35] for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages. Case involves Benjamin Kokoy Romualdez and Juliette Romualdez, acting by themselves and/or in unlawful concert with the Marcoses, engaged in devices and schemes to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of plaintiff and Filipino people
a.

f.

prescribed by Sec. 12-B of General Banking Act (due to investment shares increased to 11,470,555 voting shares/ 36.8%) [hid behind veil of corporate entity of ill-gotten wealth] Cleverly hid behind veil of corporate entity the ill-gotten wealth of Benjamin Romualdez including the 6,229,177 shares of PCI Bank registered in names of Trans Middle East Philippines Equities Inc. refused to surrender to PCGG despite disclosure as they tried and continue to exert efforts in getting hold of shares of sever companies. All these owned by Benjamin Romualdez.

b.

c.

d.

e.

[acquire assets without minimal cash-outs] obtained control of some of biggest business enterprise in the Philippines such as MERALCO, BENGUET (Mining company), Pilipinas Shell Corporation, and PCI Bank by employing devious financial schemes and techniques calculated to require massive infusion and hemorrhage of government funds with minimum/negligible cash-out from Benjamin Romualdez. [tactic to get more capital] manipulated the formation of Erectors Holdings, Inc. without infusing additional capital with insufficient securities/ collateral to make Erectors Inc. appear viable and to borrow more capital [concealment of ill-gotten wealth] At onset of Aquino government, manipulated and schemed intended to conceal and place, for the purpose of concealing and placing beyond inquiry and jurisdiction of PCGG defendants individual and collective funds, properties and assets subject of and/or suited in complaint. [fake divestments to fool PCGG] maneuvered purported sale of Romualdez interests in various companies (36/39 companies) for 5M, 3 days after formation of PCGG. This is for sole purpose of deceiving and pre-empting Govt. particularly PCGG and making it appear that Benjamin Romualdez had already divested himself of ownership of aforementioned companies. In fact, his interest are intact and being protected by Atty. Bengzon. To further entice PCGG to fictitious sale, defendants offered 20M as donation to Govt. [Invest 25M to PCI Bank, shares>30% @ 36.8%, dismantle/cancellation of funds] Misused 25M by causing it to be invested in PCI Bank and through Banks TSG to unlawful dismantling/cancelation of funds, 10 M shares for allegedly exceeding 30% ceiling

13 September 1988: Senator Enrile delivered a privilege speech re: takeover of SOLOIL Inc. flagship of First Manila Management Companies (FMMC) by Ricardo Lopa called upon Senate to look into possible violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) Senate Blue Ribbon Committee started investigation after motion of Sen. Orlando Mercado Petitioners and Ricardo Lopa subpoenaed re: knowledge re sale of 36 (or 39) corporations belonging to Benjamin Romualdez Ricardo Lopa declined to testify on ground his testimony may unjuly prejudice defendants on Civil Case #35 (which are petitioners in this case). Benzon refused to testify invoking his right to due process Senate BRC (Blue Ribbon Committee) suspended inquiry and directed petitioner to file memorandum on constitutional issues raised. Assail jurisdictional question SBRC requiring attendance and testimony in excess of jurisdiction and legislative purpose Issues: (1) WON Court has jurisdiction over issues raised by petitioners (2) WON Senate BRCs inquiry has no valid legislative purpose (3) WON the sale or disposition of the Romualdez corporations is a purely private transaction which is beyond the power of the SBRC to inquire into (4) WON the inquiry violates the right to due process of the petitioners Held: (1) YES. Court has jurisdiction over present controversy for the purpose of determining the scope and extent of the power of SBRC to conduct inquiries into private affairs in purported aid of legislation (2) YES. SBRC was only to find our WON relative of Pres. Aquino, Mr. Ricardo Lopa, had violated the law in alleged sale of Romualdez corporations to Lopa Group thereby possibly

violating RA 3019 Sec. 5 (Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act; Prohibition on certain relatives) Enriles speech contained no suggestion of contemplated legislation; he merely called upon the Senate to look into aforementioned violation questioned inquiry is NOT IN AID OF LEGISLATION and if pursued would violate principle of separation od powers between legislative and judicial departments. (3) YES. Case at hand concerns merely private matter which does not further any legitimate task of Congress OR without justification in terms of the functions of Congress. There are limits to power to probe and inquire by Congress. (4) YES. Sec. 21, Art VI allows for inquiries in aid of legislation wherein rights of individuals shall be respected. Right against self-incrimination: Petitioners may not be compelled by respondents SBRC to appear, testify and produce evidence before it because questioned inquiry is not in aid of legislation. Ratio: (1) SEPARATION OF POWERS: Constitution allotted powers to the three branches of government. However, judicial department is the ONLY one who can determine the proper allocation of powers; JUDICIAL SUPREMACY: power of judicial review (limited to actual cases and controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by parties limited to questions raised/ lis mota presented) (2) Art VI, Sec. 21: power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation not absolute or unlimited, must satisfy 2 conditions: (1)in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure; (2)rights of persons appearing in/affected by such inquiries shall be respected (subject to rights under Art. III/ Bill of Rights such as right to due process/ right against selfincrimination) Inquiries are within the jurisdiction of legislative body when they are material or necessary to the exercise of a power in it vested by Constitution such as to legislate or to expel a member. not in aid of legislation: (a) Enrile did not indict PCGG and (b) neither Lopa nor petitioners are connected with the government = PRIVATE CITIZENS (3) there is no general authority to expose private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of functions of Congress. Nor is Congress a law enforcement/ trial agency. No inquiry is an end itself; it must be related to and in furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress Investigations conducted solely for personal aggrandizement of investigators or to punish those investigated are indefensible.

Civil Case to begin with = jurisdiction of Court (4) Right of accused = may altogether refuse to take witness stand and refuse to answer any and all questions extended to administrative investigations not limited to criminal cases; not character of suit involved but NATURE of PROCEEDINGS that controls. RULING: Granted. SBRC enjoined from compelling petitioners and intervenors to testify before it and produce evidence at said inquiry.