Bengzon v Senate Blue Ribbon

G.R. No. 89914, November 20, 1991

JOSE F. S. BENGZON JR., ABELARDO TERMULO, JOSE MANTECON, VICENTE MILLS JR., LEONARDO GAMBOA, KURT BACHMANN JR., JOSE
V. E. JIMENEZ, ERNESTO CALUYA, AGERICO UNGSON, SUSAN ROXAS, ELVIE CASTILLO, AND CYNTHIA SABIDO LIMJAP, PETITIONERS, VS.
THE SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE AND ITS MEMBERS, REPRESENTED BY AND THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN, HON. WIGBERTO
TANADA, RESPONDENTS. JOSE S. SANDEJAS, INTERVENOR.
Ponente: PADILLA

FACTS:
PCGG filed with the Sandiganbayan against Benjamin Romualdez, et al for engaging in devices, schemes and stratagems to unjustly
enrich themselves at the expense of plaintiff and the Filipino people.
The Senate Minority Floor Leader Enrile delivered a speech before the Senate on the alleged take-over personal privilege before the
Senate on the alleged "takeover of SOLOIL Inc," the FlagShip of the First Manila Management of Companies or FMMC by Ricardo Lopa
and called upon the Senate to look into the possible violation of the law in the case with regard to RA 3019 (Anti Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act).
The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee (Committee on Accountability of Public Officers [SBRC]) started its investigation on the matter.
Petitioners and Ricardo Lopa were subpoenaed by the SBRC to appear before it and testify on what they know regarding the sale of
36 corporations belonging to Benjamin Romualdez. Lopa and Bengzon refused to testify, invoking their rights to due process, and that
their testimony may unduly prejudice the defendants and petitioners in case before the Sandiganbayan.

SBRC rejected the petitioner's plea to be excused from testifying and the SBRC continued its investigation of the matter.

The petitioners filed for prohibition with a prayer for TRO and/or injunctive relief, claiming that the SBRC in requiring their attendance
and testimony, acted in excess of its jurisdiction and legislative purpose.
The Supreme Court intervened upon a motion for reconsideration filed by one of the defendants of the civil case.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the case.
2. Whether or not the SBRC's inquiry has valid legislative purpose.
3. whether or not the civil case of Sandiganbayan is beyond the power of the SBRC to inquire into.
4. Whether or not the inquiry violates the petitioners' right to due process.

RULING:

1. Yes. In Angara vs Electoral Commission, the Constitution provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure
coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government. The Court has provided that the allocation of
constitutional boundaries is a task which the judiciary must perform under the Constitution. Moreover, as held in a recent case, "(t)he
political question doctrine neither interposes an obstacle to judicial determination of the rival claims. The jurisdiction to delimit
constitutional boundaries has been given to this Court. It cannot abdicate that obligation mandated by the 1987 Constitution,
although said provision by no means does away with the applicability of the principle in appropriate cases."
The Court is thus of the considered view that it has jurisdiction over the present controversy for the purpose of determining the scope
and extent of the power of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to conduct inquiries into private affairs in purported aid of legislation.

2. No.
The power to conduct formal inquiries or investigations is specifically provided for in Sec. 1 of the Senate Rules of Procedure
Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation. Such inquiries may refer to the implementation or re-examination of any law or in connection
with any proposed legislation or the formulation of future legislation. They may also extend to any and all matters vested by the
Constitution in Congress and/or in the Senate alone.

It appears, therefore, that the contemplated inquiry by respondent Committee is not really "in aid of legislation" because it is not
related to a purpose within the jurisdiction of Congress, since the aim of the investigation is to find out whether or not the relatives of
the President or Mr. Ricardo Lopa had violated Section 5 RA No. 3019, the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act", a matter that
appears more within the province of the courts rather than of the legislature.

3. No. It cannot be said that the contemplated inquiry on the subject of the privilege speech of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, i.e., the
alleged sale of the 36 (or 39) corporations belonging to Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez to the Lopa Group is to be conducted pursuant
to Senate Resolution No. 212 because, firstly, Senator Enrile did not indict the PCGG, and, secondly, neither Mr. Ricardo Lopa nor the
herein petitioners are connected with the government but are private citizens.

4. Yes. The Constitution expressly provides that "the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
It should be emphasized that the constitutional restriction does not call for the banning or prohibition of investigations where a
violation of a basis rights is claimed. It only requires that in the course of the proceedings, the right of persons should be respected.
What the majority opinion mandates is a blanket prohibition against a witness testifying at all, simply because he is already facing
charges before the Sandiganbayan. To my mind, the Constitution allows him to interpose objections whenever an incriminating
question is posed or when he is compelled to reveal his court defenses, but not to refuse to take the witness stand completely.
Bengzon, Jr. v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
G.R. No. 89914
Date of Promulgation: November 20, 1991
Ponente: Padilla, J.
Petition: Petition for prohibition to review the decision of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
Petitioners: JOSE F.S. BENGZON JR., ABELARDO TERMULO, JOSE MANTECON, VICENTE MILLS JR., LEONARDO GAMBOA, KURT
BACHMANN JR., JOSE V.E. JIMENEZ, ERNESTO CALUYA, AGERICO UNGSON, SUSAN ROXAS, ELVIE CASTILLO, and CYNTHIA SABIDO
LIMJAP
Respondents: THE SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE AND ITS MEMBERS, represented by and through the CHAIRMAN, HON.
WIGBERTO TAADA, JOSE S. SANDEJAS, intervenor.
Facts:
This case is about petitioners prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or injunctive relief to enjoin respondent Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee from requiring petitioners to testify and produce evidence at its inquiry into the alleged sale of the equity of Benjamin
Kokoy Romualdez to the Lopa Group in 36-39 corporations.
On July 30, 1987, the Republic of the Philippines represented by the PCGG filed with the Sandiganbayan Civil Case No. 0035 (Republic
of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Kokoy Romualdez, et al) for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages. The
complaint alleges that Benjamin Romualdez and Juliette Romualdez took advantage of their relationship with Ferdinand and Imelda
Marcos to unjust enrich themselves and in helping them, petitioners:
1. obtained control of MERALCO, Benguet Consolidated Mining Corporation, Pilipinas Shell Corporation and the Philippine Commercial
International Bank by employing devious financial schemes and techniques calculated to require the massive infusion and
hemorrhage of government funds with minimum or negligible cash out from Benjamin Romualdez
2. manipulated, with the help of Philguarantee officials, the formation of Erectors Holdings, Inc. and made it look viable just so it can
borrow more capital
3. manipulated and employed series of devices in order to conceal and place beyond the jurisdiction of the PCGG the petitioners
individuals and collective funds and assets now the subject of the complaint
4. maneuvered the purported sale of Benjamin Romualdezs interest in
a. Professional Managers Inc.
b. A&E International Corporation
c. First Manila Management Corporation
d. Maguindanao Navigation
e. SOLOIL, Inc
f. Philippine World Travel Inc
g. Subsidiaries consisting of 36 corporations
in order to deceive PCGG and make it look like Romualdez already divested himself of his ownership of the said interests; and to
entice the PCGG to approve the fictitious sale, the petitioners offered P20M to the Government as donation
5. misused the Meralco Pension Fund in the amount of P25M by causing it to be invested in the PCIB and through the Banks TSG and
used this instance as an excuse to unlawfully dismantle or cancel the Funds 10 million shares for allegedly violating Section 12-B of
the General Banking Act
6. hid behind the veil of corporate entity the ill gotten wealth of Benjamin Romualdez
On September 13, 1988, Senate Minority Floor Leader, Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile delivered a speech on the alleged take-over of Soloil
Inc. by Ricardo Lopa and called upon the Senate to look into the possible violation of the law in the case, particularly with regard to
RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Thereafter, the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers (Blue Ribbon
Committee) started its investigation but Ricardo Lopa and Jose F.S. Bengzon Jr. declined to follow the subpoena of the Committee to
appear and testify since according to them their testimonies can adversely affect the rights of their co-defendants in the Civil Case
No. 0335 before the Sandiganbayan. The Committee rejected the petitioners plea to be excused from testifying, hence this petition.
Issues/Held:
1. WON the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee has the power to inquire into the transactions of the sale or disposition of the Romualdez
corporations NO
2. WON the right to inquire of a congressional committee is subject to limitations - YES
Ratio:
1. According to Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution, the power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation is not absolute or unlimited. The investigation must be in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure and rights of persons appearing in or affected by such
inquiries shall be respected. Such inquiries may refer to the implementation or reexamination of any law or in connection with any
proposed legislation or the
formulation of future legislation. Also, as held in Arnault v. Nazareno, the inquiry must be material or necessary to the exercise of a
power vested in it (the Congress) by the Constitution.
Under Section 4 of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, the Senate may refer to any committee or
committees any speech or
resolution filed by any Senator which in its judgment requires an appropriate inquiry in aid of legislation. In order therefore to
ascertain the character or nature of an
inquiry, resort must be had to the speech or resolution under which such an inquiry is proposed to be made. Senator Enriles speech,
which prompted the whole investigation of the Blue Ribbon Committee, contained no suggestion of contemplated legislation. He
merely called upon the Senate to look into a possible violation of Sec. 5 of RA 3019. This matter appears to be more within the
province of the courts rather than that of the legislature. Moreover, the issue sought to be investigated by the Committee is one over
which jurisdiction had been acquired by the Sandiganbayan through the filing of Civil Case No. 0035.
2. It has been held that "a congressional committee's right to inquire is 'subject to all relevant limitations placed by the Constitution
on governmental action,' including "'the relevant limitations of the Bill of Rights'." One of the basic rights guaranteed by the
Constitution to an individual is the right against self-incrimination.
This right construed as the right to remain completely silent may be availed of by the accused in a criminal case; but may also be
invoked by other witnesses only as
questions are asked of them. The distinction is ordinary witness may be compelled to take the witness stand and claim the privilege
as each question requiring an
incriminating answer is shot at him, an accused may altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to answer any all
questions.
Decision:
Petition granted. Respondent Committee is hereby enjoined from compelling petitioners and intervenor to testify before it and
produce evidence at said inquiry.