Case Digest (G.R. No. 240873)
Facts:
Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, Milagros O. Calida, Josef Calida, Michelle Calida, and Mark Jorel Calida v. Senator Antonio “Sonny” Trillanes IV, the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Blue Ribbon Committee), and the Committee on Civil Service, Government Reorganization, and Professional Regulation, G.R. No. 240873, September 03, 2019, the Supreme Court En Banc, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners, including Solicitor General Jose C. Calida and members of his family, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (with a prayer for temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction) seeking to enjoin respondent Senator Antonio “Sonny” Trillanes IV from conducting a legislative inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest arising from government contracts awarded to Vigilant Investigative and Security Agency, Inc., a company owned by petitioners. The subject instrument was Proposed Senate Resolution No. 760, filed May 30, 2018, which urged inquiry "in aid of legislation" into the purported conflict.
Petitioners alleged that the proposed resolution lacked legislative intent and that Trillanes acted without authority when he issued invitations to resource persons because the Senate as a body had not yet approved the resolution. They contended the inquiry was intended to target and humiliate them rather than serve any legislative purpose. After filing, the Court directed respondent Trillanes to comment on the Petition (Aug. 16, 2018); Trillanes submitted a Comment denying lack of authority and asserting the invitations were issued in his official capacity as committee chair.
Trillanes explained that the resolution underwent first reading and that Senate President Vicente C. Sotto III, with the concurrence of the Senate body, formally referred it to committees; he further described later motions (by Senator Miguel Zubiri) that resulted in a change of referral ultimately placing the Blue Ribbon Committee as primary and the Committee on Civil Service as secondary committee, and that the initial hearing by Committee on Civil Service became functus officio. Petitioners later filed a Supplemental Petition impleading the committees (Aug. 31, 2018). The Court required further pleadings and memoranda; both sides filed memoranda after the Court's October 9, 2018 directive.
The only question presented to the Court was whether respondents should be enjoined from conducting hearings in aid of legislation on Proposed Senate Resolution No. 760. The Cour...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should respondents be enjoined from conducting hearings in aid of legislation over Proposed Senate Resolution No. 76...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)