G.R.
Nos. 257401/ 257916, March 28, 2023
Facts:
Following the COA Report, the
Committee resolved to conduct an investigation in aid of legislation pertaining
in particular to DOH's expenditures in relation to the "fight against
COVID." Consequently, it sent invitations via electronic mail to resource
persons, referring to them
matters
subject of the inquiry and requesting them to attend the hearings.
On August 18, 2021, the Committee
conducted its first hearing. In the
course thereof, it found out that Pharmally, the incorporators of which were
identified to have personal links with Yang, was able to secure a total of
P8.868 Billion worth of contracts from the Procurement Service of the Department
of Budget and Management (PS-DBM).
On August 31, 2021, the Committee
sent a Subpoena Ad Testificandum directing Yang to attend the September 7, 2021
hearing. Similar subpoenas were sent on September 4, 2021 to Ong and Mago.
On September 7, 2021, Ong, Mago,
Yang, and other Pharmally officials failed and/or refused to appear at the
hearing. Accordingly, the Committee issued Orders24 citing Ong, Mago, Mohit,
Twinkle, and Yang in contempt for failure to appear in the scheduled hearings.
It ordered their arrest and detention at the Office of the Senate
Sergeant-at-Arms (OSAA) until such time that they appear and give their
testimony, or otherwise purge themselves of the contempt.
According to Ong, he learned from
the media reports on September 7, 2021 that he was among those cited in
contempt and ordered arrested and detained for "refusing to appear,
despite notice" at the Committee hearings of August 27, 2021 and September
7, 2021. He alleged that he did not receive any subpoena or invitation from the
Committee. Still, he voluntarily attended the online videoconferencing hearing
on September 10, 2021.
In the course of his examination
during the hearing, the Committee again cited Ong in contempt and ordered his
arrest and detention for "testifying falsely and evasively."
On September 21, 2021, the OSAA
arrested Ong, who was attending the online Committee hearings remotely at his
residence, and detained him 1mder its custody at the Senate Complex, Pasay City
on authority of the assailed Contempt Order.
On September 22, 2021, Ong filed a
Respectful Manifestation and Motion for House Arrest. However, the Committee
did not act on the manifestation and motion.
On September 24, 2021, the Committee
continued with its hearings with Ong in attendance through videoconference. In
the course of Ong's examination, Sen. Franklin M. Drilon (Sen. Drilon) moved,
seconded by Sen. Francis Pangilinan (Sen. Pangilinan), to transfer Ong to the
Pasay City Jail.
On November 12, 2021, Ong filed his
Motion to Resolve Prayer for Status Quo Ante Order or Temporary Restraining
Order. On November 29, 2021, the Committee transferred Ong, together with
Mohit, to the Pasay City Jail.
Issue:
Whether the Committee committed
grave abuse of discretion in failing to accord petitioners their Constitutional
right to due process relative to the conduct of its proceedings.
Held:
Yes; time and again, the Court has
affirmed the power of the Legislature to conduct investigation. The
Legislature's power of inquiry, being broad, encompasses everything that
concerns the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly
needed statutes.
The power of the Legislature and its
committees to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation has been upheld in The
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee v. Hon. Majaducom, Senate of the Philippines v.
Exec. Sec. Ermita (Ermita), In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ
of Habeas Corpus of Sabio v. Senator Gordon (Sabio), Standard Chartered Bank v.
Senate Committee on Banks79 (Standard Chartered Bank), Neri v. Senate Committee
on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Neri), and Romero II
v. Senator Estrada. This means that the
mechanisms available to both the Senate and the House of Representatives, in
order that they may effectively perform their legislative functions, are also
available to their respective committees.
Concomitant to the power of the
Legislature to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is its power of contempt
impliedly provided under the 1987 Constitution. Unlike the Legislature's power
to make investigations in aid of legislation, there is no provision in the 1987
Constitution expressly granting either the Senate or the House of
Representatives with the authority or process to enforce this power of inquiry.
Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that the Legislature's power of contempt is
inherent and arises by implication. This
coercive process is essential to the Legislature's discharge of its functions.
This power permits either House
Of the
Legislature to perform its duties without impediment as it enables the Senate
or the House of Representatives to legislate wisely or effectively because they
have the power to compel the availability of information necessary in shaping
legislation.
Indeed, the exercise of the contempt
power by the Legislature is anchored on the principle of
self-preservation. As that branch of the
government vested with the legislative power, it can assert its authority and
punish contumacious acts against it independently of the Judicial Branch. Such
power of the Legislature is sui generis as it "attaches not to the
discharge of legislative functions per se but to the character of the
Legislature as one of the three independent and coordinate branches of
government."
Power to Arrest Concomitant to the
Senates Contempt Power. Strictly speaking, the power to arrest a witness is not
specified under the Senate Rules of Procedure. Such Rules only cite the
explicit
power
of the Senate to detain a witness. The Court, however, views that an arrest is
necessary to carry out the coercive process of compelling attendance,
testimony, and production of documents relevant and material in a legislative
inquiry.
As observed in Arnault, "[experience
has shown that mere requests for [relevant] information are often unavailing,
and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or
complete; so some means of compulsion is essential to obtain what is
needed." Indeed, the power of the Legislature to conduct inquiries in aid
of legislation is intended to be full and complete,90 according it the
processes necessary to carry out its core function of legislation. The Senate,
or the Congress as a whole, may effectively and wisely legislate for as long as
it may compel the availability of information which in turn will be basis of a
proposed law emanating from the proceedings in aid of legislation. The Congress
is not precluded from causing the appearance of a resource person who is not
before it. As long as the testimony of a resource person is primordial in the
Legislature's inquiry in aid of legislation, then any House of Congress or its
committees may compel, by way of an arrest, his or her appearance in the
inquiry proceedings. Necessarily, compelled testimony connotes truthful
declaration by a resource person subject of the legislative inquiry.
In Arnault, the Court stressed the
power of the Senate to conduct investigations along with necessary processes to
enforce it. Being inherent and necessary for it to effectively perform its
function of inquiry in aid of legislation, this power to compel attendance,
testimony, and production of documents relevant and necessary in a legislative
inquiry need not find textual basis in the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing
Inquiries in Aid of Legislation. As the grant of legislative power which
includes the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is intended to be
complete, i.e., without need to resort to judicial process in order that the
Legislature may be able to perform its function, it follows that the Legislature
likewise has the power to resort to mechanisms to obey its processes. Indeed, depriving
the Senate of this inherent and necessary power to compel a witness to appear,
give a truthful testimony and produce documents before it will amount to a
serious handicap to its Constitutional function to gather information relevant
and material to its legislative inquiries.
As provided in Section 21, Article
VI of the 1987 Constitution, however, the power of legislative investigation is
subject to three imitations: (1) the inquiry must be "in aid of
legislation;" (2) the inquiry must be conducted in accordance with its
duly published rules of procedure; and (3) "[t]he rights of persons
appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. " Also,
where there is factual basis for the contempt, the resource person's detention
should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry.
First Limitation: The
subject hearings were conducted in aid of legislation. As earlier mentioned,
PSR Nos. 858, 859, and 880, together with the privilege speech of Sen.
Hontiveros, were filed and referred to the Committee which called for the
conduct of an inquiry in aid of legislation.
The Court finds proper the Senate's
explanation that because the National Expenditure Program (NEP) for 2022 had
not yet been released by the DBM to the Legislature when the subject COA Report
came out in July 2021, it was fitting that the Committee hear and investigate
the finding; in the COA Report on the DOH, as early as August 18, 2021. This
Was necessary to determine if the funds appropriated under Republic Act Nos.
(RA) 11469 and 11494 for the COVID-19 pandemic were properly utilized. The
inquiry of the Committee was necessary as the COA Report seemed to point out
severe underutilization of funds, malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance by
government officials in the use of; the DOH funds.
Second Limitation: The
assailed rules are compliant with the publication requirement of Section 21
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
Third Limitation: The Committee
failed to accord petitioners their Constitutional right to due process relative
to the conduct of its proceedings. The Contempt Order dated September JO, 2021
finding that Ong and Yang testified falsely and evasively lacks factual basis.
These rights refer to no other than
those enshrined under the Bill of Rights, more particularly to the right to due
process and the right against unreasonable seizures under Sections 1 and 2,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The violation and disregard of petitioners'
rights were brought about by the Senate's exercise of its power of contempt
punishing the act of "testifying falsely or evasively."
Evidently, the Committee was fixated
on the fact that Pharmally had no capacity to pay the initial order of 54 million
pesos, it having a paid-up capital of 625,000.00 pesos only at the beginning of
the year 2020. As can be gleaned from his testimony, however, Ong was able to
subsequently aver that they had other funds sourced from the savings of the
incorporators, and that they also borrowed money from friends. He even
manifested his willingness to cooperate with the Anti-Money Laundering Council
to explain where his friends got the funds.
Further, that Ong may have shown
hesitancy in giving direct answers as regards the documents pertaining to the
supplies of PPEs does not conclusively establish that he was evasive. The
totality of his responses evince that he was mindful of his right against self-incrimination.
Again, he manifested his willingness to cooperate in the investigation by
committing to produce and submit documents required by the Committee.
As keenly observed by Senior
Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, even inconsistent answers were equated
by the Committee with "testifying evasively." As he aptly pointed out, "[whether a
witness genuinely did not know or did not recall the answer, or was evasive in
answering a question is largely a matter of judgment or opinion." He further pointed out that "falsely or
evasively" should be understood as "false" which means "not
genuine, intentionally untrue, adjusted or made so as to deceive, intended or
tending to mislead, not true, based on mistaken ideas, inconsistent with the
facts." This determination requires
"an assessment of the totality of the evidence presented to determine
whether a witness speaks truthfully or merely trying to evade answering the
question directly." Surely, this determination could not have been
made on the basis of his testimony given in the hearing of September 10, 2021
alone.
Evidently, Sen. Lacson's series of
repetitive questions as regards Yang's knowledge of Pharmally evoked different
answers. However, the fact that Yang made inconsistent or incomplete answers in
the course of his testimony does not conclusively establish that he was evasive
within the context of contempt, that is, there was refusal or unwillingness to
testify on his part. While Yang initially tried to avoid giving any leading
information as regards his connection with Pharmally, he was able to subsequently
aver in the course of the proceedings that he introduced the suppliers of
facemasks and PPEs to Ong. Again, the Committee immediately surmised on the
incredulity of his testimony, thus citing him in contempt and ordering his
arrest on the ground that he gave inconsistent or incomplete answers.
It bears underscoring that the
purpose of the Committee's proceedings is to conduct an inquiry or
investigation to aid the Senate in crafting relevant legislation, and not to
conduct a trial or make an adjudication. Legislative inquiries do not share the
same goals as the criminal trial process, and "cannot be punitive in the
sense that they cannot result in legally binding deprivation of a person's
life, liberty or property." Thus,
punishment for legislative contempt, albeit sui generis in character, must
similarly observe the minimum requirements of due
process.
As succinctly pointed out by Chief
Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, witnesses who are charged by Congress with
"giving false or evasive testimony" must be accorded stricter due
process requirements, such as the opportunity to explain one's side before
being penalized, consistent with the due process safeguards used in criminal
proceedings. Considering the broad definition of "giving false or evasive
testimony," the witness must, at the very least, given a chance to explain
why his or her testimony is not false or evasive.
In the case, the Committee's grave
abuse of discretion lay in its precipitate act of citing petitioners Ong and
Yang in contempt and ordering their arrests without giving them the opportunity
to be heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment