ARTICLE VI - LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

SECTION 21
SPOUSES DELA PAZ VS. SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
G.R. No. 184849, February 13, 2009
Inquiry in Aid of Legislation – Jurisdiction and Publication
FACTS: In October 2008, Gen. De La Paz, a senior officer of the PNP, headed a
delegation of 8 to attend an Interpol GA. De La Paz brought with him his wife
and 3 days after the scheduled GA, de la Paz is also scheduled to retire. After the
GA, De La Paz was apprehended in the departure area for he was carrying with
him €105,000.00 (P6,930,000.00). He was also carrying with him €45,000.00
(P2,970,000.00). He failed to declare in writing that he is carrying such an
amount and this is in violation of the United Nations Convention Against
Corruption and the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized
Crime. De La Paz and his group was later released but the €s were confiscated
by the Russians. Upon arrival to the Philippines, De La Paz was issued a
subpoena by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for the investigation it
was to conduct involving the Moscow incident. De La Paz averred that the said
committee does not have jurisdiction of the case. De La Paz argued that the
Committee is devoid of any jurisdiction to investigate the Moscow incident as the
matter does not involve state to state relations as provided in paragraph 12,
Section 13, Rule 10 of the Senate Rules of Procedure (Senate Rules). They further
claim that respondent Committee violated the same Senate Rules when it issued
the warrant of arrest without the required signatures of the majority of the
members of respondent Committee. They likewise assail the very same Senate
Rules because the same were not published as required by the Constitution, and
thus, cannot be used as the basis of any investigation involving them relative to
the Moscow incident.
ISSUE: Whether the said Committee has jurisdiction over the matter.
HELD: The SC ruled against De La Paz. Section 16(3), Article VI of the Philippine
Constitution states:”Each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings.”
This provision has been traditionally construed as a grant of full discretionary
authority to the Houses of Congress in the formulation, adoption and
promulgation of its own rules. The challenge to the jurisdiction of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, raised by petitioner in the case at bench, in effect,
asks this Court to inquire into a matter that is within the full discretion of the
Senate. The issue partakes of the nature of a political question. Also, the
signatures were properly obtained as evidenced by the approval of the Senate
president and it is shown that the gathering of the signatures is in accordance
with the Rules. It is also shown that the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries
in Aid of Legislation were also published in two newspapers of general
circulation.