Case No.

21
GR No. 174105
Reghis Romero II et al vs. Jinggoy Estrada et al
Fats!
Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition with application for temporary restraining order(TRO) and
preliminary injunction under Rule 65, assailing the constitutionality of the initations and compulsory
processes issued by the !enate "ommittee on #abor, $mployment and %uman Resources &eelopment in
connection with its inestigation on the inestment of Oerseas 'or(ers 'elfare )dministration(O'')) funds
in the !mo(ey *ountain project+
Pursuant to Resolution ,o+ 5-. and 5/-,Petitioner Reghis Romero 00 as owner of R100 2uilders 0nc+ was
inited by the "ommittee on #abor, $mployment and %uman Resources &eelopment to attend a public
hearing at the !enate on )ugust 3-,3446 regarding the inestment of O'') (Oerseas 'or(ers 'elfare
)dministration) funds in the !mo(ey *ountain project+ The inestigation is intended to aid the !enate in the
reiew and possible amendments to the pertinent proisions of R) 54/3,The *igrant 'or(ers )ct+
Petitioner Romero in his letter1reply re6uested to be e7cused from appearing and testifying before the
"ommittee at its scheduled hearings of the subject matter and purpose of Philippine !enate Resolution ,os+
5-. and 5/-+ The "ommittee denied his re6uest+ On the same date, initations were sent to the other si7
petitioners, then members of the 2oard of &irectors of R100 2uilders 0nc+ re6uesting them to attend the
!eptember /,3446 "ommittee hearing+ The ne7t day, !enator 8inggoy $strada as "hairman of the "ommittee
issued subpoena ad testificandum to petitioner Romero 00 directing him to appear and testify before the
"ommittee relatie to the aforesaid !enate resolutions+ The "ommittee later issued subpoenas to the 2oard of
&irectors of R100 2uilders 0nc+
Iss"e!
'hether or not the subject matter of the !enate in6uiry is sub judice
R"ling!
,O+ The !upreme court held that the sub judice issue has been rendered moot and academic by the
superening issuance of the en banc resolution of 8uly 9, 3445 in :R ,o+ 96/53.+ )n issue or a case becomes
moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controersy, so that a determination of the issue
would be without practical use and alue+ 0n such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which the
petitioner would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition+ Thus, there is no
more obstacle1on the ground of sub judice, assuming it is inocable to the continuation of the "ommittee;s
inestigation challenged in this proceeding+
)s stated in )rnault s+ ,a<areno, the power of inquiry with process to enforce it is an essential and
appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the
absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and
where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information which is not infrequently true-
recourse must be had to others who possess it.
The court further held that when the "ommittee issued initations and subpoenas to petitioners to appear
before it in connection with its inestigation of its aforementioned inestments, it did so pursuant to its authority
to conduct in6uiries in aid of legislation+ This is clearly proided in )rt+ =0, !ec+39 of the 9>5. Philippine
"onstitution+ The court has no authority to prohibit a !enate committee from re6uiring persons to appear and
testify before it in connection with an in6uiry in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure+
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 appearign in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. (Art. VI, ection !" of the "#$%
&hilippine 'onstitution(
)*+,A-,.//-A- '.