Case Summary (G.R. No. L-29274)
Petitioners
• Quirico P. Evangelista in his capacity as Secretary of PARGO
• PARGO itself
Respondents
• Hon. Hilarion U. Jarencio, Presiding Judge, CFI Manila, Branch XXIII
• Fernando Manalastas and all other Manila city officials similarly situated
Key Dates
• January 7, 1966 – EO No. 4 creates PARGO with investigatory powers
• June 7, 1968 – Evangelista issues subpoena to Manalastas to appear before PARGO
• June 25, 1968 – Manalastas files petition for certiorari/prohibition and preliminary injunction in CFI
• July 1, 1968 – CFI judge grants preliminary injunction upon bond of ₱5,000
• November 27, 1975 – Supreme Court en banc decides the case
Applicable Law
• 1973 Philippine Constitution (in force at decision)
• Executive Order No. 4 (as amended by EO 88) – vests PARGO with powers of an investigating committee under Revised Administrative Code
• Revised Administrative Code §§ 64(c), 71, 580 – authorize executive investigations, subpoenas, oaths, and document production
• Rule 65, Rules of Court – certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction
Facts of the Case
PARGO, charged with investigating graft, corruption, and other misconduct in government, issued an administrative subpoena to Manalastas commanding him to testify in a fact-finding inquiry. Manalastas contested the subpoena’s legality by filing for certiorari, prohibition, and preliminary injunction in the CFI of Manila. The trial court enjoined PARGO from issuing further subpoenas or instituting contempt proceedings against him, conditioned on posting a bond.
Issue Presented
Whether PARGO, in its fact-finding investigations, validly exercises subpoena power to compel testimony and document production and whether the CFI’s injunction against such subpoenas is a patent nullity.
Agency’s Investigatory Powers
Under Sec. 64(c) of the Revised Administrative Code and EO 4 (para. 5), the President empowered PARGO to:
- Investigate graft, corruption, smuggling, lawlessness, and other public-service anomalies
- Summon witnesses by administrative subpoena or subpoena duces tecum
- Administer oaths and take testimony or evidence relevant to investigations
These powers extend to all PARGO functions—fact-finding, recommendations, and prosecution of charges.
Subpoena Power under Executive Order No. 4 and R.A.C. § 580
The Supreme Court held that:
- Administrative subpoenas differ in kind from judicial subpoenas and do not require a pending case before a court.
- Section 580’s reference to “restrictions and qualifications as apply in judicial proceedings” means only that administrative subpoenas must not infringe constitutional rights or be unreasonable, indefinite, oppressive, or irrelevant.
- Agencies may enforce administrative subpoenas in investigations, whether or not adjudication or probable cause exists, so long as the inquiry serves a lawfully authorized purpose.
Court of First Instance Order
The CFI’s July 1, 1968 order enjoined PARGO from further issuing subpoenas to Manalastas or initiating contempt proceedings against him. The Supreme Court characterized this order as a “patent nullity” because it usurped PARGO’s legally granted investigatory authority.
Petition to the Supreme Court
PARGO elevated the matter by petitioning for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65, arguing that the CFI lacked jurisdiction to restrain administrative subpoenas and that its order violated PARGO’s statutorily conferred powers.
Majority’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court en banc, using the Revised Administrative Code (rather than the 1987 Constitution), concluded that:
- PARGO’s subpoena to Manalastas was within its legal competence, fully supported by EO 4 and §§ 71, 580 of the Revised Administrative Code.
- Administrative subpoenas are integral to fact-finding investigations and need not await a formal adjudicatory proceeding.
- Constitutional safeguards (due process, protection against unreasonable searches) remain applicable, but respondent has no blanket privilege unless he faces charges in the investigation.
- The CFI’s injunction improperly curtailed PARGO’s investigatory functions and was therefore set aside with no pronouncement as to costs.
Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
The Court distinguished this case from prior decisions (Cabal v. Kapunan, Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners) in which respondents faced administrative charges capable of resulting in penal consequences. Here, Manalastas was subpoenaed solely as a witness, with no pending administrative charge;
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-29274)
Procedural History
- Original action filed under Rule 65 (certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction) to annul the CFI Manila Branch XXIII order of July 1, 1968 (Civil Case No. 73305: Fernando Manalastas vs. Sec. Ramon D. Bagatsing, etc.).
- Trial court issued a preliminary injunction, enjoining PARGO from issuing subpoenas and initiating contempt proceedings against Manalastas upon a P5,000 bond.
- Petitioners immediately elevated the matter to the Supreme Court without first seeking reconsideration, arguing the injunction order was void on its face.
Creation and Mandate of PARGO
- President, under Sec. 64(c) of the Revised Administrative Code, created the Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government Operations (PARGO) by Executive Order No. 4 (Jan. 7, 1966); later renamed Complaints and Investigating Office (EO No. 208, Feb. 9, 1967).
- Assigned principal functions:
• Investigate immoral practices, graft and corruption, smuggling, lawlessness, subversion, and activities prejudicial to government/public interest.
• Probe violations of Republic Acts Nos. 1379 and 3019; gather evidence to establish prima facie graft and unlawfully amassed wealth.
• Receive and evaluate sworn complaints against public officials/employees; conduct fact-finding investigations; file or prosecute appropriate charges.
PARGO’s Subpoena Power under Executive Order No. 4
- EO No. 4, para. 5, vests PARGO with all powers of an investigating committee under Secs. 71 and 580, Revised Administrative Code:
• Summon witnesses by subpoena or subpoena duces tecum.
• Administer oaths and take testimony or evidence relevant to investigations.
• Require production of documents, “subject in all respects to the same restrictions and qualifications as apply in judicial proceedings of a similar character.”
Facts Leading to the Subpoena
- June 7, 1968: Undersecretary Quirico P. Evangelista served a subpoena ad testificandum on Fernando Manalastas, as Acting City Public Service Officer of Manila, to appear at PARGO for testimony.
- Manalastas refused compliance and on June 25, 1968 filed an amended petition for prohibition, certiorari, and/or injunction in CFI Manila (Civil Case No. 73305), challenging the subpoena’s legality.
Trial Court’s Order
- July 1, 1968: Presiding Judge Jarencio ordered that upon a P5,000 bond, a writ of pr