In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of CAMILO L. SABIO v.
HON. SENATOR RICHARD J. GORDON, et al.
G.R. No. 174340 17 October 2006,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. (En Banc)
[Congress Power of Inquiry]
FACTS:
Pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 455, Senator Gordon requested
PCGG Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners to appear as resource
persons in the public meeting jointly conducted by the Committee on
Government Corporations and Public Enterprises and Committee
on Public Services.
Chairman Sabio declined the invitation because of prior
commitment, and at the same time invoked Section 4(b) of EO No. 1: “No
member or staff of the Commission shall be required to testify or produce
evidence in any judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding concerning
matters within its official cognizance.”
ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 4(b) of E.O. No.1 limits power of
legislative inquiry by exempting all PCGG members or staff from testifying in
any judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding.
RULING:
No. Article VI, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution grants
the power of inquiry not only to the Senate and the House of Representatives,
but also to any of their respective committees. Clearly,
there is a direct conferral of investigatory power to the
committees and it means that the mechanism which the Houses can take in order
to effectively perform its investigative functions are also available to the
committees.
It can be said that the Congress’ power of inquiry has
gained more solid existence and expansive construal. The Court’s
high regard to such power is rendered more
evident in Senate v. Ermita, where it categorically ruled
that “the power of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of
the executive branch.” Verily, the Court reinforced the doctrine
in Arnault that “the operation of
government, being a legitimate subject for legislation, is a proper
subject for investigation” and that “the power of
inquiry is co-extensive with the power to legislate.”
Considering these jurisprudential instructions, Section 4(b)
is directly repugnant with Article VI, Section 21. Section 4(b) exempts
the PCGG members and staff from the Congress’ power of inquiry. This
cannot be countenanced. Nowhere in the Constitution is any provision
granting such exemption. The Congress’ power of inquiry, being
broad, encompasses everything that concerns the administration of
existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It even
extends “to government agencies created by Congress and officers whose
positions are within the power of Congress to regulate or even abolish.”
PCGG belongs to this class.
A statute may be declared unconstitutional because it
is not within the legislative power to enact; or it creates or establishes
methods or forms that infringe constitutional principles; or its purpose
or effect violates the Constitution or its basic principles.
Moreover, Sec. 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 has been repealed by the Constitution because it is inconsistent with the constitutional provisions on the Congress’ power of inquiry (Art. VI, Sec. 21), the principle of public accountability (Art. XI, Sec. 1), the policy of full disclosure (Art. II, Sec. 28), and the right of access to public information (Art. III, Sec. 7).
Certainly, a mere provision of law cannot pose a limitation
to the broad power of Congress, in the absence of any constitutional
basis.
