LCP

SUBJECT: CONSTI 1
TOPIC:

Agcaoilli vs Farinas
G.R. No. 232395 JULY 3, 2018

FACTS
The House Rules railroaded to initiate the inquiry
• Referral of House Resolution No. 882 from the Committee on Rules to the Committee on Good Government and
the scheduling for hearing on 02 May 2017 all took place on 16 March 2017, without the conduct of preliminary
determination before the Committee on Rules (for determination of whether it is the proper subject of legislative
inquiry) and before the respondent Committee on Good Government (for determination of jurisdiction over the
subject matter)
• The subpoena ad testificandum for petitioners Ilocos 6 to appear at the hearing scheduled on 16 May 2017 were
only served on them on 15 May 2017 - one (1) day prior to the scheduled hearing, instead of at least three (3) days
as required under Section 8 of the House Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation
• Despite lack of sufficient notice, the Committee of Good Government and Public Accountability cited petitioners
Ilocos 6 in contempt for failure to appear at the 16 May 2017 hearing.

The conditions of confinement are degrading and inhuman - effectively a continuing psychological torture inflicted
on the Ilocos 6. The Ilocos 6 were not provided food and mattresses and beddings. The detention was a stock room
with very poor ventilation and turned hastily into a detention room.
• These conditions evince the coercive nature of the interrogation as evidenced by statements of Respondent
Fariñas during the inquiry on May 29, 2017 that petitioners will be detained until the House of Representatives
resumes its session in July 24, 2017.
• A Petition for Habeas Corpus was filed by the Petitioners Ilocos 6 before the Courts of Appeals where a “Writ of
Habeas Corpus” was issued. Subsequently, an "Order of Release" was issued to the Ilocos 6 after posting bond but
said order was not served because the process server was denied entry to the House of Representatives.
• Worse, the leadership of the House of Representatives, specifically House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, openly
flouted the authority of the Court of Appeals, stating publicly that the House of Representatives would not
recognize the orders of the Court of Appeals and even threatened to abolish the Court of Appeals through a
legislation originating from the House of Representatives.

• In the end, with the Committee, specifically Respondent Fariñas unsatisfied with their answers to the questions
raised by the Committee, the Ilocos 6 were ordered back into detention, until they were ready to answer the
queries of the Committee in a manner that it deemed satisfactory.
While the Habeas Corpus Petition was still pending before the CA, petitioners and co-petitioner Marcos filed the
instant Omnibus Petition.

In opposition, respondents maintain that the writ of Amparo and writ of Habeas Corpus are two separate

remedies which are incompatible and therefore cannot co-exist in a single petition. Further, respondents argue
that the issuance of a writ of Amparo is limited only to cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances
which are not extant in the instant case.

(Consti 1) 1
Lagahit, Jason Patrick T.
 LCP

ISSUE

Whether or not the subject legislative inquiry on House Resolution No 882 may be enjoined by writ of prohibition?

RULING

No. Indeed, the power of the Court to enjoin a legislative act is beyond cavil as what the Court did in Garcillano v.
The House of Representatives Committees on Public Information, et al.[105] when it enjoined therein respondent
committees from conducting an inquiry in aid of legislation on the notorious "Hello Garci" tapes for failure to
comply with the requisite publication of the rules of procedure.

(Consti 1) 2
Lagahit, Jason Patrick T.