Contempt in legislative investigations

Never before in the history of Philippine Senate and House investigations had there been as many and as frequent contempt orders issued declaring resource persons in contempt and ordering their detention. Former president Duterte Secretary Harry Roque is questioning the constitutionality of the House quad committee order directing him to submit private documents and raising his rights against self-incrimination and to privacy. We in the legal education community are watching these legal cases with great interest.

The Philippine Constitution's Article VI, Section 21 is very clear, explicit and unequivocal in providing that both the Senate and the House and their respective committees have the power to conduct inquiry in aid of its legislative powers. This provision was cited in the case filed by Lincoln Uy Ong and Michael Yang in 2023 against the Senate Committee of senator Dick Gordon in connection with the Pharmally controversy.

The seminal case cited by the Supreme Court was the landmark decision by Justice Roman Ozaeta in 1950 concurred in by such legal luminaries as Justices Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor and Reyes. The Pharmally case of Ong and Yang was written by Justice Jean Paul Inting and concurred in by Justices, Hernando, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez and Kho Jr, Chief Justice Gesmundo wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Leonen was on leave but left a vote. Justices Caguioa and Lazaro-Javier wrote a concurring and dissenting opinion each. The majority of the justices almost unanimously upheld the propriety of legislative investigations.

In Arnault versus Nazareno, which was decided in 1950 during which the applicable Constitution was the 1935 fundamental law, the Supreme Court held that: "Although there is no provision in the Constitution expressly investing either House of Congress with power to make investigations and exact testimony to the end that it may exercise its legislative functions such power is so far incidental to the legislative function as to be implied. In other words, the power of inquiry - with process to enforce it -  is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function." If this was allowed under the 1935 Constitution, with more reason that this should be upheld in the light of the explicit mandate of Section 21 of Article VI in the current Constitution.

The High Court, in Arnault, explained the philosophy of investigations in aid of legislation, to wit: "A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to effect 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 do possess it. Experience has shown that mere requests for such information are often unavailable 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."

The Supreme Court, in Arnault vs Nazareno, also bewailed that" some information that are volunteered are not always accurate or complete so some means of compulsion is essential to obtain what is needed. The fact the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to punish its Members for disorderly behavior, does not, by necessary implication, exclude the power to punish for contempt any other person." Under the present Charter, the power of Congress to conduct inquiries is no longer merely implied but explicit and categorical.

If the House could even expel Arnie Teves who was elected by his constituencies, with more reason that such characters as Harry Roque, cassandra Li Ong, Alice Guo and Sheila Guo as well as former PCSO General Manager Royina Garma can be punished for contempt. This principle is cast in stone in Philippine constitutional law and jurisprudence. In fact, this was asked in the Bar Examinations earlier this month.