#19) PCGG VS.

NEPOMUCENO

FACTS:
This is a case about the Presidential Commission on Good Government, created through E.O.
1, with the task of assisting the President in regard to the recovery of all ill-gotten wealth
accumulated by the Marcoses, including the power to issue freeze orders or sequestration of all
business enterprises owned by them upon showing of a prima facie case.
On February 3, 1987, Saludo, revoked the authorizations previously issued to Mr. Shing. The
PCGG Commissioner approved the memorandum. Shortly, thereafter, Saludo withdrew funds
from Metrobank against the accounts of the two corporations for payment of the salaries. Kam,
Ho and Chan instituted through Shing an action for damages with prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction against the said bank, PCGG, the Commissioner and OIC Saludo with the RTC,
questiong the aforesaid revocation of the authorization as signatory previously granted to Yim
Kam Shing. RTC issued TRO.
PCGG filed a motion to dismiss with opposition to Yims prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction
on the ground that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the Commission or over the subject of
the case. RTC judge denied PCGGs motion to dismiss and granted Yims prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction.

ISSUE: WON RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

RULING: No.

The Supreme Court held that RTC and the CA for that matter have no jurisdiction over the
PCGG in the exercise of its powers under the applicable Executive Orders and Art. XVIII, sec.
26 of the Constitution and therefore may not interfere with and restrain or set aside the orders
and actions of the Commission. Under section 2 of the President's Executive Order No. 14
issued on May 7, 1986, all cases of the Commission regarding "the Funds, Moneys, Assets, and
Properties Illegally Acquired or Misappropriated by Marcoses whether civil or criminal, are
lodged within the "exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan" and all incidents
arising from, incidental to, or related to, such cases necessarily fall likewise under the
Sandiganbayan's exclusive and original jurisdiction, subject to review on certiorari exclusively by
the Supreme Court.

As can be readily seen, PCGG exercises quasi-judicial functions. In the exercise of quasi-
judicial functions, the Commission is a co-equal body with regional trial courts and co-equal
bodies have no power to control the other. However, although under B.P. 129, the CA has
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgmentof regional trial courts and quasi-judicial
bodies, E.O. 14 specifically provides in section 2 that "The Presidential Commission on Good
Government shall file all such cases, whether civil or criminal, with the Sandiganbayan which
shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction thereof." Necessarily, those who wish to question or
challenge the Commission's acts or orders in such cases must seek recourse in the same court,
the Sandiganbayan, which is vested with exclusive and original jurisdiction. The
Sandiganbayan's decisions and final orders are in turn subject to review on certiorari exclusively
by this Court.

#20) SABIO VS. GORDON

FACTS:

On February 28, 1986, former President Corazon C. Aquino installed her regime by
issuing Executive Order (E.O.) No. 1, creating the PCGG. Under Section 4 (b) of E.O. No. 1 it
provides that: "No member or staff of the Commission shall be required to testify or produce
evidence in any judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding concerning matters within its
official cognizance." Apparently, the purpose is to ensure PCGG's unhampered performance of
its task.

This was used by Sabio as their defense when they refused the invitation of Senator
Gordon to be one of the resource persons in the public meeting jointly conducted by the
Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises and Committee on Public
Services. The purpose of the public meeting was to deliberate on Senate Res. No. 455
("directing an inquiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the POTC,
PHILCOMSAT and PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation due to the alleged improprieties in their
operations by their respective Board of Directors.").

They further alleged that, there are laudable intentions of the subject inquiry in aid of
legislation and that the rule of law requires that even the best intentions must be carried out
within the parameters of the Constitution and the law. Verily, laudable purposes must be carried
out by legal methods. On that note, EO No. 1 Sec.4(b) must not be ignored.

ISSUE: WON Sabios contention is tenable.

RULING:

No. Executive Order No. 1; Section 4(b) of E.O. 1 is directly repugnant with Article VI, Section
21 of the Constitutionit exempts the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG)
members and staff from the Congress power of inquiry.It can be said that the Congress
power of inquiry has gained more solid existence and expansive construal. The Courts high
regard to such power is rendered more evident in Senate v. Ermita, which states that the power
of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of the executive branch. Verily, the Court reinforced
the doctrine in Arnault that the operation of government, being a legitimate subject for
legislation, is a proper subject for investigation and that the power of inquiry is co-extensive
with the power to legislate. Considering these jurisprudential instructions, we find Section 4(b)
directly repugnant with Article VI, Section 21. Section 4(b) exempts the PCGG members and
staff from the Congress power of inquiry. This cannot be countenanced. Nowhere in the
Constitution is any provision granting such exemption. The Congress power of inquiry, being
broad, encompasses everything that concerns the administration of existing laws as well as
proposed or possibly needed statutes. It even extends to government agencies created by
Congress and officers whose positions are within the power of Congress to regulate or even
abolish. PCGG belongs to this class.