Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 134 views

    In Re - Sabio V Gordon

    Uploaded by

    Carlota Nicolas Villaroman
    Section 4(b) of EO No. 1, which exempts PCGG members and staff from testifying before Congress, is unconstitutional. The Philippine Constitution explicitly grants Congress broad powers of inquiry that extend to all matters concerning government administration and the work of agencies created by Congress, such as PCGG. No person or entity can be exempted from this power of inquiry absent a constitutional basis. Section 4(b) directly conflicts with Congress' expansive investigative authority and has been implicitly repealed by provisions in the Constitution regarding public accountability, disclosure, and access to information.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    In Re - Sabio V Gordon

    Uploaded by

    Carlota Nicolas Villaroman
    134 views2 pages
    Section 4(b) of EO No. 1, which exempts PCGG members and staff from testifying before Congress, is unconstitutional. The Philippine Constitution explicitly grants Congress broad powers of inquiry that extend to all matters concerning government administration and the work of agencies created by Congress, such as PCGG. No person or entity can be exempted from this power of inquiry absent a constitutional basis. Section 4(b) directly conflicts with Congress' expansive investigative authority and has been implicitly repealed by provisions in the Constitution regarding public accountability, disclosure, and access to information.

    Original Description:

    .

    Original Title

    In Re- Sabio v Gordon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Section 4(b) of EO No. 1, which exempts PCGG members and staff from testifying before Congress, is unconstitutional. The Philippine Constitution explicitly grants Congress broad powers of inquiry that extend to all matters concerning government administration and the work of agencies created by Congress, such as PCGG. No person or entity can be exempted from this power of inquiry absent a constitutional basis. Section 4(b) directly conflicts with Congress' expansive investigative authority and has been implicitly repealed by provisions in the Constitution regarding public accountability, disclosure, and access to information.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    134 views2 pages

    In Re - Sabio V Gordon

    Uploaded by

    Carlota Nicolas Villaroman
    Section 4(b) of EO No. 1, which exempts PCGG members and staff from testifying before Congress, is unconstitutional. The Philippine Constitution explicitly grants Congress broad powers of inquiry that extend to all matters concerning government administration and the work of agencies created by Congress, such as PCGG. No person or entity can be exempted from this power of inquiry absent a constitutional basis. Section 4(b) directly conflicts with Congress' expansive investigative authority and has been implicitly repealed by provisions in the Constitution regarding public accountability, disclosure, and access to information.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of CAMILO L.

    SABIO v. HON. SENATOR RICHARD J. GORDON, et al.


    G.R. No. 174340 17 October 2006,
    Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. (En Banc)
    [Congress Power of Inquiry]
    FACTS:
    Pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 455, Senator Gordon requested PCGG
    Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners to appear as resource persons in the
    public meeting jointly conducted by the Committee on Government Corporations
    and Public Enterprises and Committee on Public Services.
    Chairman Sabio declined the invitation because of prior commitment, and at the
    same time invoked Section 4(b) of EO No. 1: No member or staff of the
    Commission shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial,
    legislative or administrative proceeding concerning matters within its
    official cognizance.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Section 4(b) of E.O. No.1 limits power of legislative inquiry by
    exempting all PCGG members or staff from testifying in any judicial, legislative or
    administrative proceeding.
    RULING:
    No. Article VI, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution grants the power of inquiry not
    only to the Senate and the House of Representatives, but also to any of their
    respective committees. Clearly, there is a direct conferral of investigatory
    power to the committees and it means that the mechanism which the Houses
    can take in order to effectively perform its investigative functions are also
    available to the committees.
    It can be said that the Congress power of inquiry has gained more solid
    existence and expansive construal. The Courts high regard to such power is
    rendered more evident in Senate v. Ermita, where it categorically ruled that the
    power of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of the executive
    branch. Verily, the Court reinforced the doctrine in Arnault that the
    operation of government, being a legitimate subject for legislation, is a

    proper subject for investigation and that the power of inquiry is coextensive with the power to legislate.
    Considering these jurisprudential instructions, Section 4(b) is directly repugnant
    with Article VI, Section 21. Section 4(b) exempts the PCGG members and staff
    from the Congress power of inquiry. This cannot be countenanced. Nowhere
    in the Constitution is any provision granting such exemption. The Congress
    power of inquiry, being broad, encompasses everything that concerns the
    administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It
    even extends to government agencies created by Congress and officers
    whose positions are within the power of Congress to regulate or even
    abolish. PCGG belongs to this class.
    A statute may be declared unconstitutional because it is not within the
    legislative power to enact; or it creates or establishes methods or forms that
    infringe constitutional principles; or its purpose or effect violates the
    Constitution or its basic principles.
    Moreover, Sec. 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 has been repealed by the Constitution because
    it is inconsistent with the constitutional provisions on the Congress power of
    inquiry (Art. VI, Sec. 21), the principle of public accountability (Art. XI, Sec. 1),
    the policy of full disclosure (Art. II, Sec. 28), and the right of access to public
    information (Art. III, Sec. 7).

    Certainly, a mere provision of law cannot pose a limitation to the broad power of
    Congress, in the absence of any constitutional basis.

    You might also like