Scribd
Upload
133 views39 pages

Bengzon Vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

The Supreme Court ruled that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee's inquiry into the sale of Romualdez corporations to Ricardo Lopa was not a valid exercise of the legislative power and violated the petitioners' right to due process. Specifically: 1) The inquiry was not truly "in aid of legislation" and instead aimed to determine if Lopa violated the Anti-Graft law, a matter for the courts. 2) The transaction involved private citizens and corporations, beyond the Committee's power to investigate. 3) Forcing the petitioners to testify would violate their right against self-incrimination, as the inquiry partook of a criminal proceeding. The Committee overstepped separation of powers limits

Uploaded by

Lavin Aguilar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
133 views39 pages

Bengzon Vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

The Supreme Court ruled that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee's inquiry into the sale of Romualdez corporations to Ricardo Lopa was not a valid exercise of the legislative power and violated the petitioners' right to due process. Specifically: 1) The inquiry was not truly "in aid of legislation" and instead aimed to determine if Lopa violated the Anti-Graft law, a matter for the courts. 2) The transaction involved private citizens and corporations, beyond the Committee's power to investigate. 3) Forcing the petitioners to testify would violate their right against self-incrimination, as the inquiry partook of a criminal proceeding. The Committee overstepped separation of powers limits

Uploaded by

Lavin Aguilar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 39

Bengzon vs.

Senate Blue
Ribbon
Committee
G.R. No. 89914 November 20, 1991
Presented by: JL Aguilar
Justice Padilla

FACTS
30 July 1987
- Sandiganbayan Civil Case No. 0035
(PCGG Case No. 35) entitled
"Republic of the Philippines vs.
Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez, et al.",
for reconveyance, reversion,
accounting, restitution and damages.

Complaint
- Benjamin (Kokoy) Romualdez
- Juliette Gomez Romualdez
Acting w/
Spouses Marcos unlawfully

engaged in devices, schemes and


strategems to unjuestly enrigh
themselves at the expense of
Plaintiff and the Filipino people

active collaboration of

Defendants Sene J. Gabaldon


Mario D. Camacho
Mamerto Nepomuceno
Carlos J. Valdez, Cesar C. Zalamea
Francisco Tantuico
Atty. Jose Bengzon, Jr. and his law
partners

28 September 1988
ANSWER
- one newspaper reported that the
Romuladez firms had not been
sequestered because of the
opposition of certain PCGG officials
who "had worked prviously as
lawyers of the Marcos crony firms."

- on 3 March 1986, or shortly after the


EDSA February 1986 revolution, the
Romualdez companies" were sold
for P5 million, without PCGG
approval, to a holding company
controlled by Romualdez

- Ricardo Lopa, the President's


brother-in-law, had effectively taken
over the firms, even pending
negotiations for the purchase of the
corporations, for the same price of
P5 million which was reportedly way
below the fair value of their assets.

13 September 1988
Senate Minority Floor Leader, Hon.
Juan Ponce Enrile delivered a speech
"on a matter of personal privilege"
before the Senate.

called upon "the Senate to look into


the possible violation of the law in
the case, particularly with regard to
Republic Act No. 3019, the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act."

10

motion of Senator Orlando


Mercado
matter was referred by the Senate
to the Committee on Accountability
of Public Officers (Blue Ribbon
Committee)

11

subpoenaed by the
Committee
Ricardo Lopa
Other petitioners

12

23 May 1989
Declined to testify
Prejudicial to Sandiganbayans Civil
case
Bengzon invoked Constitutional
right to due process

13

5 June 1989
rejecting the petitioner's plea to be
excused from testifying, and the
Committee voted to pursue and
continue its investigation of the
matte

14

petitioners filed petition for


prohibition with a prayer for
temporary restraning order
and/or injunctive relief.

15

Senate Blue Ribbon Committee


acted

16

in excess of its jurisdiction and


legislative purpose, in clear and
blatant disregard of their
constitutional rights, and to their
grave and irreparable damager,
prejudice and injury, and that there is
no appeal nor any other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law

17

21 December 1989
One of the defendants in the case
before the Sandiganbayan,
Sandejas, filed with the Court of
motion for intervention. The Court
granted it and required the
respondent Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee to comment on the
petition in intervention.

18

COMMENT
respondent Committee claims that
this court cannot properly inquire
into the motives of the lawmakers in
conducting legislative
investigations.

19

ISSUE/s
1. W/N the Blue Ribbon inquiry was in aid
of legislation
2. the sale or disposition of hte
Romualdez corporations is a "purely
private transaction" which is beyond
the power of the Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee to inquire into
3. the inquiry violates their right to due
process.
20

HELD
Doctrine of Separation of Powers in the
case of Angara vs. Electoral
Commission
.. it does not follow from the fact that
the three powers are to be kept
separate and distinct that the
Constitution intended them to be
absolutely unrestrained and
independent of each other.
21

1. W/N the Blue Ribbon


inquiry was in aid of
legislation
A NO.
L - Section 21, Article VI1987
Constitution

22

The Senate or the House of


Representatives or any of its
respective committee 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.

23

A - power of both houses of Congress


to conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation is not, therefore, absolute
or unlimited. Its exercise is
circumscribed by the afore-quoted
provision of the Constitution.

24

The power to conduct formal inquiries or


investigations in specifically provided for in
Sec. 1 of theSenate Rules of Procedure
Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation.Such
inquiries may refer to the implementation or
re-examination of any law or in connection
with any proposed legislation or the
formulation of future legislation. They may
also extend to any and all matters vested by
the Constitution in Congress and/or in the
Seante alone.

25

Such inquiries may refer to the


implementation or re-examination of
any law or in connection with any
proposed legislation or the
formulation of future legislation.
They may also extend to any and all
matters vested by the Constitution in
Congress and/or in the Senate alone.

26

the speech of Senator Enrile


contained no suggestion of
contemplated legislation; he merely
called upon the Senate to look into a
possible violation of Sec. 5 of RA No.
3019, otherwise known as "The AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act."

27

C - There appears to be no intended


legislation involved.The purpose of
the inquiry to be conducted is not
related to a purpose within the
jurisdiction of Congress,

28

it was conductedto find out


whether or not the relatives of
President Aquino, particularly Mr.
Lopa had violated RA 3019 in
connection with the alleged sale of
the 36 or 39 corporations belonging
to Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez to
the Lopa

29

2. W/N the sale or


disposition of hte
Romualdez corporations is
a "purely private
transaction" which is
beyond the power of the
Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee to inquire into

30

A- Yes.
L - Section 21, Article VI1987
Constitution

31

A - the inquiry under Senate


Resolution No. 212 is to look into the
charges against the PCGG filed by
the three (3) stockholders of
Oriental Petroleum in connection
with the implementation of Section
26, Article XVIII of the Constitution.

32

Senator Enrile did not indict the PCGG,


and, secondly, neither Mr. Ricardo
Lopa nor the herein petitioners are
connected with the government but
are private citizens.

33

C- therefore, that the contemplated


inquiry by respondent Committee is
not really "in aid of legislation"
becuase it is not related to a
purpose within the jurisdiction of
Congress,

34

since the aim of the investigation is to


find out whether or not the ralatives
of the President or Mr. Ricardo Lopa
had violated Section 5 RA No. 3019,
the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act", a matter that appears more
within the province of the courts
rather than of the legislature.

35

3. W/N the inquiry violates


their right to due process.
A- Yes
L Constitutional Right against Selfincrimination

36

A- a congressional committees right


to inquire is subject to all relevant
limitations placed by the
Constitution on governmental action
including the relevant limitations of
the Bill of Rights

37

One of these rights is the right of an


individual to against selfincrimination. The right to remain
silent is extended to respondents in
administrative investigations but
only if it partakes of the nature of a
criminal proceeding or analogous to
a criminal proceeding. -

38

Hence, the petitioners may not be


compelled by respondent Committee to
appear, testify and produce evidence
before it only because the inquiry is not in
aid of legislation and if pursued would be
violative of the principle of separation of
powers between the legislative and the
judicial departments of the government
as ordained by the Constitution.

39

You might also like