REMEDIAL LAW
Patricia Rachelle C.
Espinoza
DRAFT NO.: 1
ARVIN R. BALAG v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al.
G.R. No. 234608, 3 July 2018, EN BANC (Gesmundo, J.)
DOCTRINE OF THE CASE
The interests of the Senate and the witnesses appearing in its legislative inquiry
are balanced. The Senate can continuously and effectively exercise its power of
contempt during the legislative inquiry against recalcitrant witnesses, even during
recess. Such power can be exercised by the Senate immediately when the witness
performs a contemptuous act, subject to its own rules and the constitutional rights of the
said witness. However, the Senate will be prevented from effectively conducting
legislative hearings during recess - shall be duly addressed because it is expressly
provided herein that the Senate may still exercise its power of contempt during
legislative hearings while on recess provided that the period of imprisonment shall only
last until the termination of the legislative inquiry, specifically, upon the approval or
disapproval of the Committee Report. Thus, the Senate's inherent power of contempt is
still potent and compelling even during its recess. At the same time, the rights of the
persons appearing are respected because their detention shall not be indefinite.
FACTS
This is a case of petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer of an issuance
of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction seeking to annul,
set aside and enjoin implementation of the Senate P.S. Resolution No. 504 and October
18, 2017 Order of Complaint by the Senate Committee on Public Order and Dangerous
Drugs filed by Arvin R. Balag (petitioner) against the Senate of the Philippines, et. al.
(respondent). On September 17, 2017, a first-year law student from the University of
Santo Tomas named Horacio Castillo III, allegedly died due to hazing-related activities
conducted by the Aegis Juris Fraternity. On September 20, 2017, the senate released
Senate Resolution No. 504 entitled “a Resolution Directing the Appropriate Senate
Committees to Conduct an Inquiry, In Aid of Legislation, into the Recent Death of
Horacio Castillo III Allegedly due to Hazing-Related Activities” filed by Sen. Paolo
Benigno Aquino IV.
When the petitioner attended the hearing dated on October 18, 2017, Sen. Grace
Poe asked the petitioner if he was the president of Aegis Juris Fraternity however, the
petitioner refused to answer and invoked his right to self-incrimination. Sen. Panfilo
Lacson reminded that it was just a “simple question” to invoke self-incrimination and
warned the petitioner that he may be cited in contempt, but the petitioner still refused to
answer. According to Sen. Grace Poe, the petitioner’s signature appeared on the
document for the application of the Aegis Juris Fraternity in the organizational sheet
submitted in the school administration and it was indicated therein that the petitioner
was the President, yet he still refuses to answer the simple question asked. The
petitioner was then cited in contempt and was ordered to place in detention under the
Senate Sergeant at Arms’ supervision after the senate hearing. Sen. Panfilo Lacson
gave the petitioner a chance to purge out of contempt, however, the petitioner still
refused to answer and invoked his right to self-incrimination. When the petitioner was
asked of the question of whose decision it was to bring the victim to the hospital, the
petitioner submitted a plea to lift his contempt and stated that he was a member of the
Aegis Juris Fraternity, however, he does not know who the president was because he
was enrolled at another university at the time of the incident. The question asked before
his plea was again repeated and the petitioner invoked again his right to selfincrimination. The d
ISSUE:
Did the Senate Committee acted with grave abuse of discretion in conducting the
legislative inquiry and citing petitioner in contempt?
RULING:
YES. However, the court denied the petition for being moot and academic. In the
present case, the Court finds that there is no more justiciable controversy to be decided
up since in its resolution dated December 12, 2017, the Court ordered in the interim the
immediate release of petitioner pending resolution of the instant petition. Thus,
petitioner was no longer detained under the Senate's authority.
However, the court still resolved the case despite being moot and academic. The
court ruled that the period of imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt of the
Senate during inquiries in aid of legislation should only last until the termination of the
legislative inquiry. The court stated that the interests of the Senate and the witnesses
appearing in its legislative inquiry should be balanced. The Senate can continuously
and effectively exercise its power of contempt during the legislative inquiry against
recalcitrant witnesses, even during recess. Such power can be exercised by the Senate
immediately when the witness performs a contemptuous act, subject to its own rules
and the constitutional rights of the said witness. However, during recess, the Senate will
be prevented from effectively conducting legislative hearings. But the Senate may still
exercise its power of contempt during legislative hearings while on recess provided that
the period of imprisonment shall only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry
upon the approval or disapproval of the Committee Report. Thus, the Senate's inherent
power of contempt is still potent and compelling even during its recess. At the same
time, the rights of the persons appearing are respected because their detention shall not
be indefinite.