Reynaldo R. Badulis Jr.

SABIO V. GORDON_ G.R. Nos. 174340, 174318 and 174177

Facts: The Congress power of inquiry encompasses everything that concerns the administration
of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed legislation. It even extends to
government agencies created by Congress and officers whose positions are within the power of
Congress to regulate or even abolish. So long as the constitutional rights of witnesses will be
respected by the investigating committees, it is the duty of the former to cooperate with the latter
in their efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action. 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.
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago introduced Philippine Senate Resolution No. 455 (Senate
Res. No. 455) directing an inquiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the
Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippine Communications
Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), and PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation (PHC) due to
the alleged improprieties in their operations by their respective Board of Directors. The Senate
invited Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG) Chairman Camilo L. Sabio to be
the resource person in a public meeting that would deliberate on the issues presented in Senate
Res. No. 455.
Chairman Sabio, however, declined the invitation, invoking Section 4, paragraph (b) of
Executive Order No. 1, which provides: No member or staff of the Commission shall be
required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding
concerning matters within its official cognizance. Senator Richard J. Gordon issued a subpoena
ad testificandum, requiring Chairman Sabio and the four PCGG Commissioners to appear in the
public hearing scheduled on August 23, 2006 and testify on what they know relative to the
matters specified in Senate Res. No. 455. Again, Chairman Sabio refused to appear. Another
notice was sent to Chairman Sabio requiring him to appear and testify on the same subject matter
set on September 6, 2006, but Chairman Sabio still did not comply. Eventually, Chairman Sabio
and the PCGG Commissioners were arrested for contempt of the Senate and brought to the
Senate premises where they were detained.
Chairman Sabio filed the present petition for habeas corpus (G.R. No. 174340) and, together
with the four PCGG Commissioners and the PCGGs nominees to PHC, petition for certiorari
and prohibition (G.R. No. 174318). They allege that the investigating committees concerned
disregarded Sec. 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 without any justifiable reason, the inquiries conducted by the
said committees are not in aid of legislation, the inquiries were conducted in the absence of duly
published Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, and the said
committees are not vested with the power of contempt. In G.R. No. 174177, another petition for
certiorari and prohibition, PHC and its officers and directors contend that the said committees
have no jurisdiction over the subject matter stated in Senate Res. No. 455, the same inquiry is not
in accordance with the Senates Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation,
the subpoenae issued by Senator Gordon are void for having been issued without authority, the
conduct of legislative inquiry pursuant to Senate Res. No. 455 constitutes undue encroachment
by the Senate into justiciable controversies over which several courts and tribunals have already

acquired jurisdiction, and the subpoenae violated their rights to privacy and against selfincrimination.
The respondents countered that the issues raised in the petitions involve political questions over
which the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction; that Sec. 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 has been repealed by
the Constitution; that the investigating committees are vested with contempt power; that the
Senates Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation have been duly published;
that they have not violated any civil right of the PHC officers and directors, such as their right to
privacy and right against self-incrimination; and that the inquiry does not constitute undue
encroachment into justiciable controversies.
Issues: 1.) Whether or not Sec. 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 has been repealed by the Constitution;
2.) Whether or not the investigating committees are vested with contempt power;
3.) Whether or not the rights to privacy and against self-incrimination of the PHC officers
and directors have been violated
Decision: The petitions are DISMISSED.
Sec. 4(b) of E.O. 1 has been repealed by the Constitution because it is inconsistent with the
constitutional provisions on the Congress power of inquiry, the principle of public
accountability, the policy of full disclosure, and the right of access to public information.
Sec. 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 has been repealed by the Constitution because it is inconsistent with the
constitutional provisions on the Congress power of inquiry (Art. VI, Sec. 21), the principle of
public accountability (Art. XI, Sec. 1), the policy of full disclosure (Art. II, Sec. 28), and the
right of access to public information (Art. III, Sec. 7). The Constitution is the highest law of the
land and all provisions of laws against it are invalid no matter how noble their intentions may be.
The Congress power of inquiry encompasses everything that concerns the administration of
existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed legislation. It even extends to government
agencies created by Congress and officers whose positions are within the power of Congress to
regulate or even abolish, to which class the PCGG belongs. Sec. 4(b) exempts the PCGG
members and staff from the Congress power of inquiry. This can not be countenanced. Nowhere
in the Constitution is any provision granting such exemption.
Sec. 4(b) places the PCGG members and staff beyond the reach of courts, Congress and other
administrative bodies. Instead of encouraging public accountability, it only institutionalizes
irresponsibility and non-accountability.
The conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation is not only intended to benefit Congress but also
the citizenry. The Constitution seeks to promote transparency in policy-making and in the
operations of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to enable them
to exercise effectively their constitutional rights. Armed with the right information, citizens can
participate in public discussions leading to the formulation of government policies and their
effective implementation. An informed citizenry is essential to the existence and proper
functioning of any democracy. Sec. 4(b) limits or obstructs the power of Congress to secure from

PCGG members and staff information and other data in aid of its power to legislate. Again, this
can not be countenanced.
The investigating committees are vested with contempt power
The 1987 Constitution, in Section 21 of its Article VI, recognizes the power of investigation, not
just of Congress, but also of any of its committees. Significantly, this constitutes a direct
conferral of investigatory power upon the committees and it means that the mechanisms which
the Houses can take in order to effectively perform the investigative function are also available to
the committees, like the power of contempt. Otherwise, Sec. 21 of Art. VI would be meaningless.
The subject inquiry does not violate rights to privacy and against self-incrimination
In evaluating a claim for violation of the right to privacy, a court must determine whether a
person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, whether that expectation has
been violated by unreasonable government intrusion. The subject inquiry focuses on the acts
committed by the PHC officers and directors in the discharge of their duties as such. The latter
have no reasonable expectation of privacy over matters involving their offices in a corporation
where the government has interest, which matters are of public concern and over which the
people have the right to information. Indeed, the right to privacy is not absolute where there is an
overriding compelling state interest. The alleged anomalies in the PHILCOMSAT, PHC and
POTC, ranging in millions of pesos, and the conspiratorial participation of the PCGG and its
officials are compelling reasons for the Senate to exact vital information from the PHC officers
and directors, as well as from Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners to aid it in crafting the
necessary legislation to prevent corruption and formulate remedial measures and policy
determination regarding PCGGs efficacy.
Anent the right against self-incrimination, this may be invoked by the PHC officers and directors
only when the incriminating question is being asked, since they have no way of knowing in
advance the nature or effect of the questions to be asked of them. That this right may possibly be
violated or abused is no ground for denying the investigating committees their power of inquiry.
So long as the constitutional rights of witnesses, like Chairman Sabio and his
Commissioners, will be respected by the investigating committees, it is the duty of the former to
cooperate with the latter in their efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative
action. 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.