Case Title:
REGHIS M. ROMERO II, EDMOND Q. SESE,
LEOPOLDO T. SANCHEZ, REGHIS M. ROMERO
III, MICHAEL L. ROMERO, NATHANIEL L.
ROMERO, and JEROME R. CANLAS,
petitioners,
vs.
SENATOR JINGGOY E. ESTRADA and
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR,
EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT, respondents.
G.R. No. 174105. April 2, 2009. (VELASCO, JR., J).
Special Civil Action
Disputed matter:
Constitutionality of the invitations
and other compulsory processes
issued by the Senate Committee in
relation to misapplication of OWWA
Funds in the Smokey Mountain
Project.
Issues:
1. Was the subject matter of the Senate Inquiry
still a sub judice?
2. Notwithstanding that the senate resolutions
and letter – invitation were sent by the
previous congress, may the current Congress
still compel the presence of the petitioners to
legislative inquiry?
3. Was there a violation of the petitioners’ right
against self-incrimination.?
Rulings:
1. The issue was already rendered moot and academic.
The en banc resolution denying with finality the motion of Chavez renders the
issue of sub judice moot and academic. Assuming however that the Chavez case
is still pending, it does not bar the Senate from conducting inquiries in aid of
legislation. The purpose of court proceedings and Senate inquiries were
different. Courts adjudicate or settle actual controversies through the
application of law. Senate inquiries enable to legislative body to gather
information to improve lawmaking. These may result in amendment of laws or
enactment of new ones, although the inquiries need not necessarily result to
legislations.
Ratio – The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to
judicial proceedings to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or
obstructing the administration of justice. A violation of the sub judice rule may
render one liable for indirect contempt. This is in view that the Courts, in
deciding issues, must be free from external influences.
On-going judicial proceedings do not preclude congressional hearings in aid of
legislation. It applies to appealed cases and special civil actions awaiting final
disposition
2. Yes, the current congress may still compel the presence of
the petitioners notwithstanding the Senate Resolutions and
letter-invitation were sent by the previous Congress.
RATIO – The Court has no authority to prohibit a Senate
committee from requiring persons to appear and testify
before it in connection with an inquiry in aid of legislation
in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.
This is a Constitutional grant of power to the Congress.
All pending matters and proceedings, i.e., unpassed bills
and even legislative investigations, of the Senate of a
particular Congress are considered terminated upon the
expiration of that Congress and it is merely optional on the
Senate of the succeeding Congress to take up such
unfinished matters, not in the same status, but as if
presented for the first time. For the simple reason that the
compositions of the Congress were different.
3.No, the petitioners’ right against selfincrimination were not violated.
Ratio - The right against self-incrimination
may only be invoked when incriminating
questions were asked, since the witnesses
have no way to know in advance the nature
of questions that may be asked in the
inquiry.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.