Scribd
Upload
45 views

Sabio Vs Gordon

The document discusses the power of legislative inquiry by Congress and whether Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 limits this power by exempting PCGG members from testifying. The ruling found that: 1) Article VI, Section 21 of the Constitution grants the power of inquiry not only to the Senate and House of Representatives but also to their committees. 2) Section 4(b) directly conflicts with this constitutional power and cannot exempt PCGG members from congressional inquiry. 3) Section 4(b) has been repealed by the Constitution as it is inconsistent with provisions regarding legislative inquiry, public accountability, full disclosure, and access to information.

Uploaded by

Karen Ampeloquio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
45 views

Sabio Vs Gordon

The document discusses the power of legislative inquiry by Congress and whether Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 limits this power by exempting PCGG members from testifying. The ruling found that: 1) Article VI, Section 21 of the Constitution grants the power of inquiry not only to the Senate and House of Representatives but also to their committees. 2) Section 4(b) directly conflicts with this constitutional power and cannot exempt PCGG members from congressional inquiry. 3) Section 4(b) has been repealed by the Constitution as it is inconsistent with provisions regarding legislative inquiry, public accountability, full disclosure, and access to information.

Uploaded by

Karen Ampeloquio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

[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 Court’s 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 co-extensive 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