Lopez v. De Los Reyes
G.R. No. L-34361: November 5, 1930
FACTS:
On October 23, 1929, Candido Lopez assaulted, without any justification, the
Honorable Jose D. Dimayuga, a member of the House of Representatives.
On September 16, 1930, the House of Representatives adopted the resolution
requiring the Speaker of the House of Representatives to order the arrest of Candido Lopez to
be confined in the Bilibid Prison for twenty-four hours on November 6, 1929. The House
declared said Candido Lopez guilty of contempt of the House of Representatives for having
violated the privileges of one of the members of said House of Representatives.
The House adjourned that session, the second, at midnight on November 8, 1929,
without the order of arrest having been served on Lopez. The confirmatory resolution
hereinbefore quoted was approved on September 16, 1930, during the third session of the
Philippine Legislature.
It further appears that a new warrant of arrest was issued by the Speaker of the House
of Representatives on September 17, 1930. Lopez was taken into custody by Colonel De los
Reyes. Assistant Chief of the Constabulary, on September 19, 1930. Immediately a writ
of habeas corpus was obtained from Honorable Mariano Albert, Auxiliary Judge of First
Instance sitting in the City of Manila.
The trial judge dismissed the petition, with costs, and remanded the petitioner to the
custody of the respondent for compliance with the order of the House of Representatives. The
petitioner appealed from the judgment to the Court and here, in compliance with the law, the
appeal has been given precedence over all actions pending in the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Is there a limit to the period of imprisonment for contempt during inquiries in aid of
legislation conducted by the House of Representatives?
RULING:
That the legislative power to punish for contempt arises by implication, is justified
only by the right of self-preservation, and is the least possible power adequate to the end
proposed. Where imprisonment is imposed for contempt of a legislative body in the United
States, it terminates with the adjournment of the session of the body in which the contempt
occurred. The absolute absence of any judicial precedent which acknowledges the right of a
legislative body to extend punishment for contempt beyond the adjournment of the session,
and that to go against the unanimous authority to the contrary, would be to sanction a power
for the Houses of the Philippine Legislature greater than that which any legislative body in
the United States, including the Houses of the Congress of the United States, is permitted to
exercise. No legal cause for the restraint of the petitioner is shown.