Scribd
Upload
53 views

PHILCOMSAT Vs Senate

This document discusses a case between PHILCOMSAT and the Senate of the Philippines. The Senate conducted an inquiry into losses incurred by government corporations PHILCOMSAT, POTC, and PHC. The Senate committee issued a report recommending privatization and director replacement. PHILCOMSAT directors challenged this in court, arguing the Senate abused its discretion. The court ruled the Senate was within its constitutional powers to conduct the inquiry and issue the report.

Uploaded by

anon_421571815
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
53 views

PHILCOMSAT Vs Senate

This document discusses a case between PHILCOMSAT and the Senate of the Philippines. The Senate conducted an inquiry into losses incurred by government corporations PHILCOMSAT, POTC, and PHC. The Senate committee issued a report recommending privatization and director replacement. PHILCOMSAT directors challenged this in court, arguing the Senate abused its discretion. The court ruled the Senate was within its constitutional powers to conduct the inquiry and issue the report.

Uploaded by

anon_421571815
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PHILCOMSAT vs.

Senate
Gr. No. 180308
June 19, 2013

PERLAS-BERNABE, J

FACTS: Petitioners Locsin and Andal are both directors and corporate officers of PHC, as well
as nominees of the govt. to the board of directors of both POTC and PHILCOMSAT. By virtue of
its interests in both PHILCOMSAT and POTC, the govt has, likewise, substantial interest in
PHC. The govt., through the PCGG, regularly received cash dividends from POTC. However,
POTC suffered its first loss. Similarly, in 2004, PHC sustained a ₱7-million loss attributable to its
huge operating expenses. in view of the losses that the government continued to incur and in
order to protect its interests in POTC, PHILCOMSAT and PHC, Senator Miriam Santiago, during
the 2nd Regular Session of the 13th Congress of the Philippines, introduced Proposed Senate
Resolution No. 455 directing the conduct of an inquiry, in aid of legislation, on the anomalous
losses incurred by POTC, PHILCOMSAT and PHC and the mismanagement committed by their
respective board of directors. PSR No. 455 was referred to respondent Committee on
Government Corporations and Public Enterprises, which conducted 11 public hearings on
various dates. Petitioners Locsin and Andal were invited to attend these hearings as resource
persons.
Committee Report No. 312 recommended the privatization and transfer of the jurisdiction
over the shares of the government in POTC and PHILCOOMSAT to the PMO under the DOF
and the replacement of govt. nominees as directors of POTC and PHILCOMSAT. Locsin and
Andal filed a petition before the SC questioning the hasty approval of the Senate of the Com.
Report No. 312.

ISSUE: Whether or not Senate committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in approving Committee Resolution No. 312?

RULING: No. The Senate did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction in approving Com. Res. No 312. The respondents Senate Committees' power of
inquiry relative to PSR No. 455 has been passed upon and upheld in the consolidated cases
of In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Camilo L. Sabio, which cited Article VI,
Section 21 of the Constitution, as follows:
"The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights
of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected."
The Court explained that such conferral of the legislative power of inquiry upon any committee
of Congress, in this case the respondents Senate Committees, must carry with it all powers
necessary and proper for its effective discharge.11On this score, the respondents Senate
Committees cannot be said to have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in
excess of jurisdiction when it submitted Committee Resolution No. 312, given its constitutional
mandate to conduct legislative inquiries. Nor can the respondent Senate be faulted for doing so
on the very same day that the assailed resolution was submitted. The wide latitude given to
Congress with respect to these legislative inquiries has long been settled, otherwise, Article VI,
Section 21 would be rendered pointless.

You might also like