University of the Philippines College of Law

Block F2021

Topic Privacy of Communication and Correspondence (Article III, Section 3)

Case Name SABIO v. GORDON
Case Number G.R. No. 174340 (consolidated with G.R. Nos. 174318 & 174177)
Date October 17, 2006
Ponente Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
Right involved Right to privacy and right against self-incrimination
Rights-holder PHILCOMSAT directors and officers
Duty-bearer Senate Committee
State Action Inquiry in aid of legislation
Case assigned to Nina & Inna

SUMMARY RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC

PHILCOMSAT directors and officers refused the invitation by the Senate Committee on Government
Corporations and Public Enterprises in an inquiry in aid of legislation on the matter of allegations of
corruption in PHILCOMSAT which allegedly involved PCGG officials. In refusing the invitation, they
invoked their right to privacy and right against self-incrimination. The Court held, however, that these
rights were not violated by the Senate Committee inquiry and ordered the PHILCOMSAT directors and
officers, as well as the PCGG officials, to heed the invitation of the Senate to appear and testify in the
Committee meeting.

FACTS

 In May 2006, the Senate Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises (whose
Chairperson was Senator Gordon) invited PCGG Chairperson Sabio, PCGG Commissioners, and
officers of POTC, PHILCOMSAT, and PHC to act as resource persons for a committee meeting to
deliberate a Senate Resolution which directed an inquiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous
losses incurred by POTC, PHILCOMSAT, and PHC due to alleged improprieties in their operations
by their respective Board of Directors.
 Invoking Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 (law which created the PCGG), Sabio and other PCGG
Commissioners declined the repeated attempts of the Senate Committee to make them attend
said meeting. Said provision states that “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.” On the other hand, directors and officers of the groups
subject of the inquiry declined the invitations by assailing the propriety of the legislative inquiry.
 After repeated futile attempts to invite the resource persons, the Senate ordered the arrest of
Sabio and the other commissioners for contempt. The latter were detained at the Senate
premises.
 The foregoing prompted the filing of the following cases with the SC:
o Petition by Sabio for habeas corpus against the Senate Committee
o Petition by Sabio, PCGG Commissioners, and PHC officers for certiorari and prohibition
against the Senate
o Petition by PHILCOMSAT officers for certiorari and prohibition against the
Senate Committee

ISSUES

 WON the refusal of the PCGG Chairperson and Commissioner to appear before the Senate
Committee is unjustified because Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 is repealed by the Constitution and
therefore cannot be invoked
 WON the Senate Committee cannot punish the PCGG members for contempt
 WON the Senate Committee’s inquiry violates the right to privacy of the PHILCOMSAT
officers
 WON the Senate Committee’s inquiry violates the right against self-incrimination of
PHILCOMSAT officers
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Block F2021

 WON the Senate Committee is barred from inquiring into the issue since the same is being
litigated before the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio Decidendi

WON the refusal of YES. The refusal is unjustified because Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 is
the PCGG directly repugnant with Article VI Section 21 (Congress’ power of
Chairperson and inquiry), Article XI Section 1 (principle of public accountability), Article
Commissioner to II Section 28 (policy of full disclosure), and Article III Section 7 (right to
appear before the public information) and therefore, unconstitutional. Thus, it cannot be
Senate Committee is invoked to refuse an invitation from the Senate to an inquiry in aid of
unjustified because legislation.
Section 4(b) of E.O.
No. 1 is repealed by That said EO provision exempts PCGG members and staff from the
the Constitution and Congress’ power of inquiry cannot be countenanced since such power of
therefore cannot be inquiry, being broad, encompasses everything that concerns the
invoked administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed
statutes and nowhere in the Constitution is any provision granting such
exemption.

Also, the EO provision, being in the nature of an immunity, is

inconsistent with the principle of public accountability as it places the
PCGG members and staff beyond the reach of courts, Congress and
other administrative bodies.

It also runs counter with ensuring the people’s access to information

because its effect of limiting or obstructing the power of Congress to
secure from PCGG members and staff information and other data in aid
of its power to legislate necessarily deprives the people of information
since such proceedings, by way of the information disclosed in such, are
meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry in governmental
decision-making as well as in checking abuse in the government.
WON the Senate NO. The Order of Arrest for contempt was approved by the Senate
Committee cannot President himself and signed by 15 senators, not just by the Committee.
punish the PCGG At any rate, the Senate Committee CAN punish persons for contempt
members for since the Constitution, in Article VI Section 21, directly conferred the
contempt power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation also to the respective
committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate. This
means that the means which the Houses can take in order to effectively
perform its investigative function are also available to the Committees,
including the exercise of the contempt power.
WON the Senate NO. Their right to privacy was not violated because they have no
Committee’s reasonable expectation of privacy over matters involving their
inquiry violates offices in a corporation where the government has interest.
the right to Certainly, such matters are of public concern and over which the
privacy of the people have the right to information. The right to privacy is not
PHILCOMSAT absolute where there is an overriding compelling state interest. The
officers alleged anomalies 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 them to aid in crafting the
necessary legislation to prevent corruption and formulate remedial
measures and policy determination regarding PCGG’s efficacy.

Note: 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.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Block F2021

WON the Senate This right may be invoked only when the incriminating question
Committee’s is being asked, since they have no way of knowing in advance
inquiry violates the nature or effect of the questions to be asked of them. That
the right against this right may possibly be violated or abused is no ground for
self-incrimination denying the Senate their power of inquiry.
of PHILCOMSAT
officers
WON the Senate NO. The Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of
Committee is barred Legislation provide that the filing or pendency of any prosecution of
from inquiring into criminal or administrative action should not stop or abate any inquiry to
the issue since the carry out a legislative purpose.
same is being
litigated before the
Court of Appeals and
the Sandiganbayan

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 174340 for habeas corpus is DISMISSED, for being moot. The
petitions in G.R. Nos. 174318 and 174177 are likewise DISMISSED.

Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 is declared REPEALED by the 1987 Constitution. Respondent Senate
Committee’s power of inquiry relative to Senate Resolution 455 is upheld. PCGG Chairman xxxx and
Commissioners xxxx, PCGG’s nominees to Philcomsat Holdings Corporation, as well as its directors
and officers, petitioners in G.R. No. 174177, are ordered to comply with the Subpoenae Ad
Testificandum issued by respondent Senate Committee directing them to appear and testify in public
hearings relative to Senate Resolution No. 455.

SO ORDERED.

NO SEPARATE OPINION