Legislative investigations and the rights of witnesses

What are the rights of innocent witnesses who appear before the committee hearings and investigations conducted by the Philippine Senate and the House of Representatives? Can they just be ordered detained on the spot upon motion duly seconded and with no objection from a few senators or congressmen attending a particular hearing? Do these citizens have no right to due process before they are deprived of their right to liberty?

The congressional investigations conducted by the House of Representative on the disbursement of public funds by the provincial government of Cagayan was climaxed by the declaration and detention of the provincial administrator for contempt. She was ordered detained by the House. The same declarations in contempt had been done repeatedly by the Senate in a number of investigations where some resource persons or witnesses were detained. This brings to fore the legal issue of the scope and limitations of such legislative powers. What happens when witnesses who were just invited as resource persons gave answers that the honorable legislators did not like? Is this enough ground to order them detained without a process of hearing them first?

This column supports the Senate and the House in their common objective to conduct investigations in aid of legislation. In fact, they should be commended in the conduct of the alleged Pharmally controversy in the purchase of COVID-19 protective gear, the conduct of inquiry into the murder of the late Negros Oriental governor Roel Degamo, the investigation of the provincial governor of Misamis Occidental for the alleged illegal arrest and detention of the suspended mayor of that province's Bonifacio municipality.

There were many sterling investigations conducted before by former senators Richard Gordon, Franklin Drilon, and the late Miriam Defensor Santiago. But we need to raise issues on the rights of witnesses appearing before these investigations.

The Supreme Court en banc (all the 15 justices composing the highest court) decided the case of Alvin Balag vs. the Senate, GR No 234608 on July 3, 2018 through the pen of then associate justice, now Chief Justice Alexander H. Gesmundo, This was about the Senate inquiry into the fraternity-related alleged murder through hazing of UST Law student Horatio Tomas Castillo III. The Supreme Court said: "This issue must be threshed out as the Senate's exercise of its power of contempt without a definite period is capable of repetition. Moreover, the indefinite detention of persons cited in contempt impairs their constitutional right to liberty. Thus, paramount public interest requires the Court to determine such issue to ensure that the constitutional rights of the persons appearing before a legislative inquiry of the Senate are protected."

The Supreme Court lamented: "The contempt order issued against petitioner simply stated that he would be arrested and detained until such time that he gives his true testimony, or otherwise purges himself of the contempt. It does not provide any definite and concrete period of detention. Neither does the Senate Rules specify a precise period of detention when a person is cited in contempt." These are very important pronouncements because witnesses are often at the mercy of legislators who might have strong bias for or against certain issues. The High Court thus concluded that the detention of witnesses who committed contemptuous acts should not be indefinite but only coterminous with the duration of a particular inquiry. The court also sets certain safeguards for the rights of the witnesses.

In effect, the highest court of the land cautioned Congress, as an exercise of the cardinal principle of check and balance, that the legislative powers are not limitless. The human rights of witnesses must be safeguarded. Thus, the court concluded that indefinite suspension is absolutely prohibited. In addition, "if the Congress decides to extend the period of imprisonment for the contempt committed by a witness beyond the duration of the legislative inquiry, then it may file a criminal case under the existing statute or enact a new law to increase the definite period of imprisonment."

The honorable legislators should never forget that no person should be deprived of liberty (not just life and property) without due process of law. Ours is a government of laws and not of men. No matter how high and mighty their positions are, they are bound to respect the rights of ordinary citizens. After all, they love to call themselves the servants of the people.