Recently, prodded by the discovery of numerous unfinished or inexistent flood control projects by a handful of construction companies, the Senate conducted an investigation in aid of legislation where it summoned the owners and/or chief executive officers of the said construction companies. One of the most notable portion of the said inquiry was when one of the owners invoked the right against self-incrimination after being asked about ghost projects. Netizens immediately noted that the contractor’s answer is akin to that of Janet Napoles who had also been the lead actor of this kind of legislative inquiry decades ago. Some even contended that the said contractor should be cited in contempt for not eliciting or providing the appropriate answers to the said queries.
In order to provide everyone a better understanding of the Senate’s contempt power, the same shall be the focus of our discussion in this week’s edition.
Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides: 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.
The power of the Legislature and its committees to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation has been upheld in The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee v. Hon. Majaducom, Senate of the Philippines v. Exec. Sec. Ermita (Ermita), In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of Sabio v. Senator Gordon (Sabio), Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate Committee on Banks (Standard Chartered Bank), Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Neri), and Romero II v. Senator Estrada. This means that the mechanisms available to both the Senate and the House of Representatives, in order that they may effectively perform their legislative functions, are also available to their respective committees.
In the case of Ong vs Senate of the Philippines[1], the Highest Court declared that concomitant to the power of the Legislature to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is its power of contempt impliedly provided under the 1987 Constitution. Unlike the Legislature’s power to make investigations in aid of legislation, there is no provision in the 1987 Constitution expressly granting either the Senate or the House of Representatives with the authority or process to enforce this power of inquiry. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that the Legislature’s power of contempt is inherent and arises by implication. This coercive process is essential to the Legislature’s discharge of its functions. This power permits either House of the Legislature to perform its duties without impediment as it enables the Senate or the House of Representatives to legislate wisely or effectively because they have the power to compel the availability of information necessary in shaping legislation.
Indeed, the exercise of the contempt power by the Legislature is anchored on the principle of self-preservation. As that branch of the government vested with the legislative power, it can assert its authority and punish contumacious acts against it independently of the Judicial Branch. Such power of the Legislature is sui generis as it “attaches not to the discharge of legislative functions per se but to the character of the Legislature as one of the three independent and coordinate branches of government.”[2]
Also discussed in the Ong case is the Senate’s power to arrest which is concomitant to its contempt power. It was ruled therein that an arrest is necessary to carry out the coercive process of compelling attendance, testimony, and production of documents relevant and material in a legislative inquiry. Experience has shown that mere requests for relevant information are often unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion is essential to obtain what is needed.
Indeed, the power of the Legislature to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is intended to be full and complete, according it the processes necessary to carry out its core function of legislation. The Senate, or the Congress as a whole, may effectively and wisely legislate for as long as it may compel the availability of information which in turn will be basis of a proposed law emanating from the proceedings in aid of legislation. The Congress is not precluded from causing the appearance of a resource person who is not before it. As long as the testimony of a resource person is primordial in the Legislature’s inquiry in aid of legislation, then any House of Congress or its committees may compel, by way of an arrest, his or her appearance in the inquiry proceedings. Necessarily, compelled testimony connotes truthful declaration by a resource person subject of the legislative inquiry.[3]
However, also enshrined in Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, are the limitations of the Senate’s power of legislative investigation as well as its contempt power, to wit: (1) the inquiry must be “in aid of legislation; (2) the inquiry must be conducted in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure; and (3) the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. Also, where there is factual basis for the contempt, the resource person’s detention should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry.
[1] G.R. No. 257401, March 28, 2023
[2] Idem
[3] Idem