Case Digest (G.R. No. 120095)
Facts:
The case involves Philcomsat Holdings Corporation (PHC), petitioners Enrique L. Locsin and Manuel D. Andal, and the respondents comprising the Senate of the Republic of the Philippines, specifically the Senate Committees on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises and on Public Services, along with Hon. Senators Richard Gordon and Juan Ponce Enrile. PHC is a holding company engaged in managing the money market interest income of Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), itself a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC). The government, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), holds a substantial interest in these entities.
From 1986 to 1996, the government regularly received dividends, but losses began in 1998 for POTC and in 2004 for PHC due to massive operating expenses and questionable financial management, including the establishment of Telecommunications Center, Inc. (TCI), a PH
Case Digest (G.R. No. 120095)
Facts:
- Parties and Corporate Relations
- Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), which is a government-sequestered entity; the Republic of the Philippines holds 35% of POTC's shares.
- PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation (PHC) is a private corporation serving as a holding company whose main operation is collecting money market interest income from PHILCOMSAT.
- Petitioners Enrique L. Locsin and Manuel D. Andal are directors and corporate officers of PHC and nominees of the government on the boards of both POTC and PHILCOMSAT.
- Government Interest and Financial Performance
- Through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), the government regularly received cash dividends from POTC between 1986 and 1996.
- In 1998, POTC experienced its first financial loss; similarly, PHC sustained a ₱7-million loss in 2004 due to rising operating expenses. By 2005, PHC's operating expenses had increased substantially.
- Allegations of Mismanagement and Legislative Inquiry
- Several PHC board members established Telecommunications Center, Inc. (TCI), a wholly-owned PHC subsidiary, which allegedly received advances of PHC funds without proper accountability reports.
- On February 20, 2006, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago introduced Proposed Senate Resolution (PSR) No. 455 directing an inquiry into the anomalous losses and mismanagement by the boards of POTC, PHILCOMSAT and PHC.
- PSR No. 455 was referred to the Senate Committees on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises and on Public Services, which conducted eleven (11) public hearings. Petitioners Locsin and Andal were invited as resource persons.
- Committee Report and Senate Action
- On June 7, 2007, the Senate Committees submitted Committee Report No. 312, investigating the role of the PCGG and finding overwhelming mismanagement and negligence by the PCGG and its nominees regarding POTC, PHILCOMSAT, and PHC.
- The Report recommended privatization and transfer of government shares in POTC and PHILCOMSAT to the Privatization Management Office (PMO) under the Department of Finance (DOF), and replacement of government nominees on the corporations' boards.
- The Senate approved the Report on the same day of submission.
- The Petition
- On November 15, 2007, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Supreme Court assailing the approval of Committee Report No. 312 by the Senate, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
- Petitioners alleged Senator Richard Gordon acted with partiality and denied their right to counsel during hearings.
- They also claimed Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, despite recusing himself for conflict of interest, actively participated in the hearings.
Issues:
- Whether the Senate committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in approving Committee Report No. 312.
- Whether Committee Report No. 312 should be nullified for being hastily approved and for proposing no legislation.
- Whether petitioners' right to counsel was violated during the Senate hearings.
- Whether Senator Enrile's participation despite his recusal invalidated the proceedings.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)