Balag vs Senate

Facts:

This is a case of petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer of an issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction seeking to annul, set aside and enjoin implementation of the Senate P.S. Resolution No. 504 and October 18,
2017 Order of Complaint by the Senate Committee on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs filed by Arvin R. Balag (Balag) against
the Senate of the Philippines, et. al. (respondent). On September 17, 2017, a first-year law student from the University of Santo
Tomas named Horacio Castillo III, allegedly died due to hazing-related activities conducted by the Aegis Juris Fraternity.

On September 20, 2017, the senate released Senate Resolution No. 504 entitled “a Resolution Directing the Appropriate Senate
Committees to Conduct an Inquiry, In Aid of Legislation, into the Recent Death of Horacio Castillo III Allegedly due to Hazing-
Related Activities” filed by Sen. Paolo Benigno Aquino IV.

When Balag attended the hearing dated on October 18, 2017, Sen. Grace Poe asked Balag if he was the president of Aegis Juris
Fraternity however, Balag refused to answer and invoked his right to self-incrimination. Sen. Panfilo Lacson reminded that it was just
a “simple question” to invoke self-incrimination and warned Balag that he may be cited in contempt, but Balag still refused to
answer.

According to Sen. Grace Poe, Balag’s signature appeared on the document for the application of the Aegis Juris Fraternity in the
organizational sheet submitted in the school administration and it was indicated therein that Balag was the President, yet he still
refuses to answer the simple question asked.

Balag was then cited in contempt and was ordered to place in detention under the Senate Sergeant at Arms’ supervision after the
senate hearing. Sen. Panfilo Lacson gave Balag a chance to purge out of contempt, however, Balag still refused to answer and
invoked his right to self-incrimination. When Balag was asked of the question of whose decision it was to bring the victim to the
hospital, Balag submitted a plea to lift his contempt and stated that he was a member of the Aegis Juris Fraternity, however, he
does not know who the president was because he was enrolled at another university at the time of the incident.

The question asked before his plea was again repeated and Balag invoked again his right to self-incrimination.

Issue:

WON the Senate Committee acted with grave abuse of discretion in conducting the legislative inquiry and citing Balag in contempt

Ruling:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for being moot and academic. However, the period of imprisonment under the inherent power
of contempt of the Senate during inquiries in aid of legislation should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry. The
December 12, 2017 Resolution of the Court ordering the temporary release of Arvin R. Balag from detention is hereby declared
FINAL.

Yes. However, the court denied the petition for being moot and academic. In the present case, the Court finds that there is no more
justiciable controversy to be decided up since in its resolution dated December 12, 2017, the Court ordered in the interim the
immediate release of Balag pending resolution of the instant petition. Thus, Balag was no longer detained under the Senate's
authority. However, the court still resolved the case despite being moot and academic.

The court ruled that the period of imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt of the Senate during inquiries in aid of
legislation should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry. The court stated that the interests of the Senate and the
witnesses appearing in its legislative inquiry should be balanced. The Senate can continuously and effectively exercise its power of
contempt during the legislative inquiry against recalcitrant witnesses, even during recess. Such power can be exercised by the
Senate immediately when the witness performs a contemptuous act, subject to its own rules and the constitutional rights of the said
witness.

However, during recess, the Senate will be prevented from effectively conducting legislative hearings. But the Senate may still
exercise its power of contempt during legislative hearings while on recess provided that the period of imprisonment shall only last
until the termination of the legislative inquiry upon the approval or disapproval of the Committee Report. Thus, the Senate's inherent
power of contempt is still potent and compelling even during its recess. At the same time, the rights of the persons appearing are
respected because their detention shall not be indefinite.

The interests of the Senate and the witnesses appearing in its legislative inquiry are balanced. The Senate can
continuously and effectively exercise its power of contempt during the legislative inquiry against recalcitrant witnesses,
even during recess. Such power can be exercised by the Senate immediately when the witness performs a contemptuous
act, subject to its own rules and the constitutional rights of the said witness. However, the Senate will be prevented from
effectively conducting legislative hearings during recess - shall be duly addressed because it is expressly provided herein
that the Senate may still exercise its power of contempt during legislative hearings while on recess provided that the
period of imprisonment shall only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry, specifically, upon the approval or
disapproval of the Committee Report. Thus, the Senate's inherent power of contempt is still potent and compelling even
during its recess. At the same time, the rights of the persons appearing are respected because their detention shall not be
indefinite.