CONSTI - Sabio V Gordon
CONSTI - Sabio V Gordon
respondents.
Ponente: SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J
Relief: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of respondent court, dated June 27, 1968,
dismissing petitioners' petition to adopt the minor, Colin Berry Christensen Duncan. It seeks to have the
findings and conclusions of law contained in the decision annulled and revoked and to declare the petition
for adoption meritorious and the child sought to be adopted, the minor Colin Berry Christensen Duncan,
declared the child by adoption and heir of herein petitioners-appellants, Robin Francis Radley Duncan and
Maria Lucy Christensen.
Facts: n February 20, 2006, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago introduced Senate Res. No. 455 directing
an inquiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines Overseas
Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation
(PHILCOMSAT), and PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation (PHC) due to the alleged improprieties in their
operations by their respective Board of Directors. Pursuant to this, on May 8, 2006, Senator Richard
Gordon, wrote Chairman Camilo Sabio of the PCGG inviting him to be one of the 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.
At the same time, he invoked Section 4(b) of E.O. 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. Apparently, the purpose is to ensure PCGGs unhampered
performance of its task. Gordons Subpoenae Ad Testificandum was repeatedly ignored by Sabio hence
he threatened Sabio to be cited with contempt.Issues: 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.
Held: 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 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.
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).
Ratio: 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. Certainly, a mere provision of law cannot pose a limitation
to the broad power of Congress, in the absence of any constitutional basis.