Case Summary (G.R. No. 174105)
Key Dates
– August 15, 2006: Invitation to Romero II to appear before the Committee.
– August 18, 2006: Romero II’s letter seeking to be excused.
– August 28, 2006: Committee’s denial of Romero II’s request; invitations to the other six petitioners.
– August 29–30, 2006: Service of subpoenas; filing of petition for prohibition (G.R. No. 174105).
– September 4, 2006: Romero II appears; subsequent manifestations and motions for TROs.
– December 28, 2006: Petitioners’ reply.
– July 1, 2008: Final denial in Chavez v. NHA (G.R. No. 164527).
– April 2, 2009: En banc decision in G.R. No. 174105.
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 21 (power of either House or its committees to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation); Rules of Court, Rule 71 (indirect contempt); Senate Rules (termination of pending matters at end of each Congress).
Facts of the Case
Pursuant to Senate Resolutions Nos. 537 and 543, the Committee invited petitioners to public hearings to investigate a P550.86 million alleged loss of OWWA funds in the Smokey Mountain project. Romero II sought to be excused; the Committee denied his request and issued subpoenas. Petitioners then filed a petition for prohibition, TRO, and preliminary injunction to enjoin the Committee from compelling their testimony.
Petitioners’ Contentions
- The subject matter is sub judice because of the pending Chavez petition before the High Court.
- The inquiry seeks to determine criminal liability for plunder and is not genuinely in aid of legislation.
- Compulsion to testify violates their right against self-incrimination.
- Without immediate relief, they risk arrest, detention, and forced testimony before resolution of Chavez.
Respondents’ Arguments
– The inquiry is a political question and a valid exercise of legislative power.
– Chavez involves different issues and does not divest the Committee of jurisdiction.
– The probe’s purpose is to assess the need to amend RA 8042 (Migrant Workers Act) and protect OWWA funds.
– Petitioners’ constitutional rights are preserved and may be invoked question by question.
Court’s Ruling Overview
The petition for prohibition, TRO, and injunction is denied. The Court finds no constitutional or procedural barrier to the Committee’s inquiry and holds that the petition is moot and academic.
Sub Judice and Mootness
The sub judice rule safeguards fair judicial proceedings. Chavez v. NHA was finally resolved by an en banc resolution on July 1, 2008, rendering the sub judice issue moot. Even if Chavez had remained pending, Senate inquiries continue irrespective of simultaneous judicial proceedings.
Legislative Inquiry Properly Exercised
Legislative inquiries serve to gather information for wise lawmaking and are distinct from judicial adjudication. Precedents (Sabio v. Gordon; Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate Committee; Arnault v. Nazareno) confirm that pending criminal or administrative cases, and even cases before this Court, do not bar congressional investigations in aid of legislation.
Functus Officio and Termination of the Inquiry
Resolutions
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 174105)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioners are six members of the Board of Directors of R-II Builders, Inc., and its owner, Reghis M. Romero II.
- On August 15, 2006, the Senate Committee on Labor, Employment and Human Resources Development issued a public hearing invitation pursuant to PS Resolutions Nos. 537 and 543 to investigate OWWA’s P550.86 million Smokey Mountain investments.
- Romero II replied on August 18, 2006, seeking to be excused; the Committee denied his request on August 28, 2006.
- Subpoenas ad testificandum were served on Romero II (September 4, 2006) and the other petitioners for separate hearing dates.
- Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition with an urgent plea for a TRO and preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to enjoin the Committee from compelling their testimony.
Procedural History
- August 30, 2006: G.R. No. 174105 petition filed; petitioners sought to bar the Senate inquiry and issuance of compulsory process.
- September 4, 2006: The Supreme Court denied the immediate TRO; Romero II nonetheless appeared and testified at the Senate hearing.
- September 6 and 19, 2006: Manifestations and urgent motions for TRO filed, alleging harassment and irrelevant questioning.
- Respondents filed opposition arguing the investigation is a political question and contended Chavez v. NHA does not deprive them of jurisdiction.
- October 17, 2006: Committee’s comment distinguished its inquiry from the issues in Chavez, emphasized the legislative purpose to amend R.A. 8042.
- December 28, 2006: Petitioners filed their reply, rei