G.R. No. L-29274 - Evangelista vs. Jarencio

Executive Order No. 4 (January 7, 1966), under Section 64(c) of the Revised Administrative Code, established the Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government Operations (PARGO), later amended by EO No. 88 (September 25, 1967) and converted into the Complaints and Investigating Office by EO No. 208 (February 9, 1967).
PARGO’s functions include investigating immoral practices, graft and corruption, smuggling, lawlessness, subversion, violations of Republic Acts Nos. 1379 and 3019, and conducting fact-finding investigations on sworn complaints for possible filing of charges.

EO No. 4, paragraph 5, and Sections 71 and 580 of the Revised Administrative Code vest PARGO with all powers of an investigating committee, including the authority to summon witnesses by subpoena ad testificandum or subpoena duces tecum, administer oaths, and take testimony or evidence relevant to investigations.
These subpoena powers apply to all PARGO functions—legislative, adjudicatory/quasi-judicial, and purely investigatory.

June 7, 1968: Undersecretary Quirico P. Evangelista issued a subpoena ad testificandum to Fernando Manalastas, Acting City Public Service Officer of Manila, commanding his appearance as a witness in PARGO’s fact-finding investigation of alleged anomalies in the Manila City Government.
June 25, 1968: Manalastas filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila an amended petition for prohibition, certiorari and/or injunction with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No. 73305), assailing the legality of PARGO’s subpoenas and threat of contempt under Section 580, Revised Administrative Code.
July 1, 1968: Presiding Judge Hilarion U. Jarencio granted the writ of preliminary injunction, conditioned on a ₱5,000 bond, restraining PARGO from issuing further subpoenas to Manalastas and from instituting contempt proceedings under Section 580.

Petitioners (Sec. Evangelista and PARGO) directly sought certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65, contending that the trial court’s order was a patent nullity.
The core questions presented were PARGO’s authority to issue subpoenas in pure fact-finding investigations and the collateral constitutionality of EO No. 4.

Whether PARGO, under EO No. 4 para. 5 and Sections 71 and 580 of the Revised Administrative Code, has authority to issue subpoenas for purely fact-finding investigations.
Whether the proviso in Section 580 (that an agency’s subpoena power is “subject in all respects to the same restrictions and qualifications as apply in judicial proceedings of a similar character”) requires a pending judicial or quasi-judicial case before issuance.
Whether EO No. 4’s validity, as the source of PARGO’s subpoena power, may be collaterally attacked on constitutional grounds in this proceeding.