G-33.

LEGISLATURE

<J.L. TAN>
G.R. No. L-3820

July 18, 1950

Jean L. Arnault, petitioner.

vs.
Leon Nazareno, Sergeant-at-arms, Philippine Senate, and Eustaquio Balagtas, Director of Prisons,
respondents.
FACTS:
The petitioner was the attorney-in-fact of Ernest H. Burt in the negotiations for the purchase of
the Buenavista and Tambobong Estates by the Government of the Philippines. The purchase was effected
and the price paid for both estates was PhP 5 million. It was also reported that the Government did not
have to pay a single centavo for the Tambobong Estate as it was already practically owned by virtue of a
deed of sale from the Philippine Trust Company and by virtue of the recession of the contract through
which Ernest H. Burt had an interest in the estate. Arnault testified that two checks payable to Burt
aggregating P1,500,000.00 were delivered to him; and that on the same occasion he draw on said account
two checks; one for P500,000, which he transferred to the account of the Associated Agencies, Inc., with
PNB, and another for P440,000.00 payable to cash, which he himself cashed.
The Senate then adopted Resolution No. 8 creating a Special Committee to determine the validity
of the purchase and whether the price paid was fair and just. An intriguing question which the committee
sought to resolve was that involved in the apparent irregularity of the Government's paying to Burt the
total sum of P1,500,000.00 for his alleged interest of only P20,000.00 in the two estates, which he seemed
to have forfeited anyway long before October, 1949. During the said Senate investigation, petitioner was
asked to whom a part of the purchase price, or P440,000.00, was delivered. Petitioner refused to answer
this question, hence the Committee cited him in contempt for contumacious acts and ordered his
commitment to the custody of the Sergeant at-arms of the Philippines Senate and imprisoned in the new
Bilibid Prison until he reveals to the Senate or to the Special Committee the name of the person who
received the P440,000.00 and to answer questions pertinent thereto. He contended that the Senate has no
power to punish him for contempt for refusing to reveal the name of the person to whom he gave the
P440,000.00 because such information is immaterial to, and will not serve, any intended or purported
legislation and his refusal to answer the question has not embarrassed, obstructed, or impeded the
legislative process. He thereafter filed a petition for habeas corpus directly with the Supreme Court
questioning the validity of his detention.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Senate has the power to punish him for contempt for refusing to reveal the
name of the person to whom he gave the P440,000.00?
RULING:
YES. According to Article VI, Section 1 of the Philippine Constitution, the legislative power is
vested in the Congress, which consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Each house may
determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the
concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, expel a Member. The very reason for the exercise of the
power to punish for contempt is to enable the legislative body to perform its constitutional function
without impediment or obstruction. Legislative functions may be and in practice are performed during
recess by duly constituted committees charged with the duty of performing investigations or conducting
hearing relative to any proposed legislation.

Once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the jurisdiction of a legislative body to

make, the investigating committee has the power to require a witness to answer any question pertinent to
that inquiry, subject of course to his constitutional right against self-incrimination. The inquiry, to be
within the jurisdiction of the legislative body to make, must be material or necessary to the exercise of a
power in it vested by the Constitution, such as to legislate, or to expel a Member; and every question
which the investigator is empowered to coerce a witness to answer must be material or pertinent to the
subject of the inquiry or investigation.
deny to such committees the power of inquiry with process to enforce it would be to defeat the
very purpose for which that the power is recognized in the legislative body as an essential and appropriate
auxiliary to is legislative function. It is but logical to say that the power of self-preservation is coexistent
with the life to be preserved. But the resolution of commitment here in question was adopted by the
Senate, which is a continuing body and which does not cease exist upon the periodical dissolution of the
Congress or of the House of Representatives. There is no limit as to time to the Senate's power to punish
for contempt in cases where that power may constitutionally be exerted as in the present case.