Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 83 views

    Philcomsat Vs Senate

    Uploaded by

    JebellePuracan
    The Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) and its directors Locsin and Andal were invited to attend Senate hearings regarding losses incurred by related government telecommunications companies. Locsin and Andal claimed their constitutional right to counsel was violated during the hearings. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to counsel only applies to persons under custodial investigation suspected of a crime. Since Locsin and Andal were invited as resource persons, not under custodial investigation, their right to counsel was not violated. The case was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Philcomsat Vs Senate

    Uploaded by

    JebellePuracan
    83 views1 page
    The Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) and its directors Locsin and Andal were invited to attend Senate hearings regarding losses incurred by related government telecommunications companies. Locsin and Andal claimed their constitutional right to counsel was violated during the hearings. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to counsel only applies to persons under custodial investigation suspected of a crime. Since Locsin and Andal were invited as resource persons, not under custodial investigation, their right to counsel was not violated. The case was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Philcomsat vs Senate

    Original Title

    Philcomsat vs Senate

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) and its directors Locsin and Andal were invited to attend Senate hearings regarding losses incurred by related government telecommunications companies. Locsin and Andal claimed their constitutional right to counsel was violated during the hearings. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to counsel only applies to persons under custodial investigation suspected of a crime. Since Locsin and Andal were invited as resource persons, not under custodial investigation, their right to counsel was not violated. The case was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    83 views1 page

    Philcomsat Vs Senate

    Uploaded by

    JebellePuracan
    The Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) and its directors Locsin and Andal were invited to attend Senate hearings regarding losses incurred by related government telecommunications companies. Locsin and Andal claimed their constitutional right to counsel was violated during the hearings. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to counsel only applies to persons under custodial investigation suspected of a crime. Since Locsin and Andal were invited as resource persons, not under custodial investigation, their right to counsel was not violated. The case was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Rights of persons under custodial investigation

    PHILCOMSAT vs Senate
    G.R. No. 180308, June 19, 2012

    FACTS:

    The Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the


    POTC or Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), a government-sequestered
    organization in which the Republic of the Philippines holds a 35% interest in shares of stocks. Petitioner
    PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation (PHC), meanwhile, is a private corporation duly organized and existing
    under Philippine laws and a holding company whose main operation is collecting the money market interest
    income of PHILCOMSAT.

    Petitioners Locsin and Andal are both directors and corporate officers of PHC, as well as nominees of the
    government to the board of directors of both POTC and PHILCOMSAT.

    Since POTC suffered losses because of its huge operating expenses and in order to protect the government’s
    interest in these companies, late Senator Miriam Santiago introduced Senate Resolution No. 455 directing to
    conduct of an inquiry, in aid of legislation. Petitioners Locsin and Andal were invited to attend these hearings
    as resource persons.

    ISSUES:

    Whether or not the petitioners’ constitutionally-granted right to counsel was violated during the hearings held
    in furtherance of PSR 455.

    HELD:

    No. The Court held that petitioners’ constitutionally-granted right to counsel was not violated.
    The right to be assisted by counsel can only be invoked by a person under custodial investigation suspected for
    the commission of a crime, and therefore attaches only during such custodial investigation. Since petitioners
    Locsin and Andal were invited to the hearings as resource persons, they cannot therefore validly invoke their
    right to counsel. Hence, the case was dismissed.

    You might also like