The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of

its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.

Power of Inquiry 1. Who has the power

The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.

2. Nature

The power of inquiry is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative action. (Arnault v. Nazareno) It has been remarked that the power of legislative investigation may be implied from the express power of legislation and does not itself have to be expressly granted.192

3. Limitations193_:

1.

It must be in aid of legislation194

2.

It must be in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure195

192 _{Cruz, Philippine Political Law, p. 155 (1995 ed).}

193 _{See Concurring Opinion of Justice Corona in Neri v. Senate}

Committee; See also Bernas Commentary, p737 (2003 ed).

194 _{This requirement is an essential element for establishing}

jurisdiction of the legislative body.

195 _{Section 21 may be read as requiring that Congress must have}

“duly published rules of procedure” for legislative investigations. Violation of these rules would be an offense against due process. (Bernas Commentary p. 740 (2003 ed).

3. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.

4.

Power of Congress to commit a witness for contempt terminates when the legislative body ceases to exist upon its final adjournment.196

(Note: 1-3 are explicit limitations while 4 is an implicit limitation.)

4. Reason for the limitations

The reason is in the past, this power was much abused by some legislators who used it for illegitimate ends to browbeat or intimidate witnesses usually for grandstanding purposes only. There were also times when the subject of inquiry was purely private in nature and therefore outside the scope of the powers of Congress.197

5. Scope of questions

It is not necessary that every question propounded to a witness must be material to a proposed legislation. (Arnault v. Nazareno) This is because the legislative action is determined by the information gathered as a whole. (Arnault v. Nazareno)

6. Who may be summoned under Section 21

Senate v. Ermita198 _{specified who may and who}

may not be summoned to Section 21 hearings. Thus, under this rule, even a Department Head who is an alter ego of the President may be summoned. Thus, too, the Chairman and members of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) are not except from summons in spite of the exemption given to them by President Cory Aquino during her executive rule.199 _{The Court ruled that anyone, except the}

President and Justices of the Supreme Court may be summoned.

7. Power to punish

Legislative Contempt. The power of investigation necessarily includes the power to punish a contumacious witness for contempt. (Arnault v. Nazareno)

Acts punished as legislative contempt. The US Supreme Court in the case of Marshall v. Gordon200

mentions:

1.

Physical obstruction of the legislative body in the discharge of its duties.

196 _{This must be so inasmuch as the basis of the power to impose}

such a penalty is the right which the Legislature has to self- preservation, and which right is enforceable during the existence of the legislative body. (CJ Avancena in Lopez v De los Reyes)

197 _{Cruz, Philippine Political Law, p. 155 (1995 ed).} 198 _{G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006.}

199 _{Sabio v. Gordon, G.R. No. 174318, October 17, 2006.} 200 _{243 US 521.}

2.

Physical assault upon its members for action taken or words spoken in the body;

3. Obstruction of its officers in the performance of their official duties

4. Prevention of members from attending so that their duties might be performed

5.

Contumacy in refusing to obey orders to produce documents or give testimony which was a right to compel.201

Power to punish for contempt and local legislative bodies. The power to punish may not be claimed by local legislative bodies (Negros Oriental Electric Cooperative v. Sangguniang Panglunsod)

Power to punish is sui generis. The exercise of the legislature of contempt power is a matter of preservation and independent of the judicial branch. Such power is sui generis. (Sabio v. Gordon)

Q: When may a witness in an investigation be punished for contempt?

A: When a contumacious witness’ testimony is required in a matter into which the legislature or any of its committees has jurisdiction to. (In short, the investigation must be in aid of legislation.) (Arnault v. Nazareno)

Q: For how long may a private individual be imprisoned by the legislature for contempt? A: For HR: Until final adjournment of the body. For Senate: Offender could be imprisoned indefinitely by the body provided that punishment did not become so long as to violate due process. (Arnault v. Nazareno) 8. Rights of persons

PhilComStat has no reasonable expectation of privacy over matters involving their offices in a corporation where the government has interest. (Sabio v. Gordon)

9. Courts and the Committee

A court cannot enjoin the appearance of a witness in a legislative investigation. (Senate Blue Ribbon Committee v. Judge Majaducon)

Bernas: The general rule of fairness, (which is what due process is about) could justify exclusion of persons from appearance before the Committee.

Q: Section 1 of EO 464 provides that “all heads of departments of the Executive Branch shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before House of Congress.” Does this contravene the

power of inquiry vested in the Congress? Is Section 1 valid?

A: Valid. The SC read Section 1 of EO 464 to mean that department heads need the consent of the president only in question hour contemplated in Section 22 of Article VI. (The reading is dictated by the basic rule of construction that issuances must be interpreted,as much as possible, in a way that will render it constitutional.)

Section 1 of EO 464 cannot be applied to appearances of department heads in inquiries in aid of legislation. Congress is not bound in such instances to respect the refusal of the department head in such inquiry, unless a valid claim of privilege is subsequently made, either by the President or by the Executive Secretary. (Senate v. Ermita; EO 464 case)

10. Power of Inquiry v. Executive Privilege Senate v. Ermita: “Congress has undoubtedly has a right to information from the executive branch whenever it is sought in aid of legislation. If the executive branch withholds such information on the ground that it is privileged, it must so assert it and state the reason therefore and why it must be respected.” (Justice Carpio Morales in Senate

v. Ermita)

In document Political Law (Page 45-47)