Sabio vs. Gordon

Facts:

In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of Camilo L. Sabio, Petitioner, J. Ermin Ernest Louie R. Miguel, Petitioner‑Relator, vs. Honorable Senator Richard Gordon, in his capacity as Chairman, and the Honorable Members of the Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises and the Committee on Public Services of the Senate, Honorable Senator Juan Ponce‑Enrile, in his official capacity as Member, Honorable Manuel Villar, Senate President, Senate Sergeant‑at‑Arms, and the Senate of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 174340, 174318 and 174177, October 17, 2006, Supreme Court En Banc, Sandoval‑Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court.

The principal petitioners included Camilo L. Sabio (PCGG Chairman) and PCGG Commissioners Ricardo M. Abcede, Nicasio A. Conti, Tereso L. Javier and Narciso S. Nario; petitioners in one consolidated case also included the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and the PCGG nominees to Philcomsat Holdings Corporation (Manuel Andal and Julio Jalandoni). Philcomsat Holdings Corporation and several of its directors and officers (Philip G. Brodett, Luis K. Lokin, Jr., Roberto V. San Jose, Delfin P. Angcao, Roberto L. Abad, Alma Kristina Alobba and Johnny Tan) were petitioners in a separate but consolidated docket. Respondents were the Senate Committees on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises and on Public Services (chaired by Senators Richard Gordon and Joker P. Arroyo), other Senators, the Senate President Manuel Villar, the Senate Sergeant‑at‑Arms and the Senate.

The controversy arose after Senate Resolution No. 455 (Feb. 20, 2006) directed an inquiry in aid of legislation into alleged anomalous losses at POTC, PHILCOMSAT and PHC. The Resolution was transferred to the Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises. On May 8, 2006 Sabio was invited as a resource person; he declined invoking Section 4(b) of Executive Order No. 1 (E.O. No. 1), which provides that no member or staff of the PCGG “shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding concerning matters within its official cognizance.”

On August 10, 2006 Senator Gordon issued Subpoenae Ad Testificandum (approved by Senate President Villar) directing Sabio, PCGG commissioners and Philcomsat officers/directors to appear and testify at a public hearing scheduled August 23, 2006. Sabio again refused and reiterated his reliance on E.O. No. 1. Subsequent notices set a new hearing for September 6; on September 7 the Committees issued an Order directing the Sergeant‑at‑Arms to arrest Sabio and the Commissioners for contempt. Sabio was arrested on September 12 and detained at the Senate premises.

Sabio filed a petition for habeas corpus (G.R. No. 174340). The PCGG (and nominees) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition (G.R. No. 174318). Philcomsat and its officers/directors filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition (G.R. No. 174177). The petitioners challenged, inter alia, the validity and applicability of Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1, the committees’ authority to conduct the inquiry and to punish for contempt, the subpoenas’ validity, whether the inquiry was genuinely in aid of legislation and whether it encroached on pending judicial proceedings. Respondents answered that the issues were justiciable, that Section 4(b) had been repealed by the 1987 Constitution, that Senate rules had been duly published, that the committees had contempt power, and that petitioners’ privacy and self‑incrimination rights had not been ...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Is Section 4(b) of Executive Order No. 1 repealed or rendered unconstitutional by the 1987 Constitution?
• Are the Senate Committees (and the Senate) vested with the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation and to punish for contempt in the course of such inquiries?
• Did the Senate Committees’ subpoenas and inquiry, as conducted under Senate Resolution No. 455 and applicable Senate Rules, violate petitioners’ rights to privacy or against self‑incrimination?
• Does the pendency of related cases in regular courts and the Sandiganbayan preclude the Senate Committees from conducting the inquiry (i.e....(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)