1.

Yes, the committee may compel the Senator to attend the

inquiry.
Under the constitution, the Senate or the House of Representatives or any
of their respective committees has the power to conduct legislative inquiry in
aid of legislation. Only the President and his alter egos are exempt from said
inquiry. Here, De Lima is a mere Senator and thus, she is not covered by the
exemption.
Corollary, for as long as the legislative inquiry directed to her is in aid of
legislation, De Lima could be compelled to attend. In case De Lima refuses to
comply with the subpoena, the committee may take disciplinary actions and
they may even cite De Lima for contempt.

2. a) No. As a general rule, rules must be complied with over

tradition.
The rule has the control of the law while tradition, albeit being not
controlling, shall be given due respect as to its observance and application.
However, in the instant case, Jonas being the aggrieved party, deprived of
the benefit of the application of the long standing tradition practiced in
determining who should take the post as the Minority Floor Leader, cannot
bring the case before the Court for it is a political question. The Court cannot
take cognizance over this case and question the validity of the result of the
election for the Minority Floor Leadership because it has been derived upon
the decision of those who voted for Julius to be the Minority Floor Leader. It
has been provided in the Rules of the House that the Minority Leader shall
be elected by the Members of the Minority ad can be changed, at any time,
by a majority vote of all the Minority members. Thus, the victory of Julius to
be elected as the Minority Floor Leader must be given respect in the
exclusion of the application of the long standing tradition. To support such
contention, Sec. 16 par. 3, of Article 6 provides that Each House may
determine the rules of its proceedings, hence, based on the foregoing, this
was complied with by the members who constituted the election for such
position, making the contention of Jonas that there was grave abuse of
discretion when some members of the minority brushed aside the long
standing tradition of the House, untenable.
b) Yes. Jonas will be given the chance to be the Minority Floor
Leader.

Jonas who garnered the second highest number of votes, can be the
Minority Floor if the rule further provides that those members who vote for
the winning candidate for Speakership shall constitute the majority in the
House.

c.) Reasons why the underhanded tactic might have been favorable for the
majority are:
- Considering that Jake who was elected as the Speaker of the House came

from the Majority block, and Julius, who's election as the Minority Floor
Leader was alleged to be caused by the manipulation of the majority clearly
manifests that the election for the said positions was to establish a swift
move with respect to the facile passage of bills;
- If the rule otherwise provides that, Members who vote for the winning
candidate for Speaker shall constitute the Majority; and
- The underhanded tactic utilized by the Majority was to reconcile the
possible competing and contradicting conclusions or decisions of both blocks,
the Majority and Minority.

3. No. Oversight function is only subjected to the Department

Heads.
In the case at bar, the names of local government officials are the ones
involved. Legislative inquiry in aid of legislation is needed. Therefore, the
House of Representatives should conduct investigations to the persons who
are in the list.
However it should be noted that, if the House of Representative will
conduct investigation for the purpose of knowing the veracity of the
allegations of the President with regards to the list of names involved,
legislative inquiry in aid of legislation is not applicable. The purpose of this is
to only review or re-examine any law or appropriation.
Therefore, there is a need for legislation to prove whether the ones stated
are really involved or protectors of illegal drugs and not the allegations made
by the President.