accordance with its duly published rules of procedure" and that "the rights of
Bengzon v Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Digest persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected." It
G.R. No. 89914 November 20, 1991
Padilla, J.:
Facts:
 Petitioner was one of the defendants in a civil case filed by the government
with the Sandiganbayan for the alleged anomalous sale of Kokoy Romoaldez
of several government corporations to the group of Lopa, a brother-in-law of
Pres. Aquino.
 By virtue of a privilege speech made by Sen. Enrile urging the Senate to look
into the transactions, an investigation was conducted by the Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee. Petitioners and Ricardo Lopa were subpoenaed by the
Committee to appear before it and testify on "what they know" regarding the
"sale of thirty-six (36) corporations belonging to Benjamin "Kokoy"
Romualdez."
 At the hearing, Lopa declined to testify on the ground that his testimony may
"unduly prejudice" the defendants in civil case before the Sandiganbayan.

 Petitioner filed for a TRO and/or injunctive relief claiming that the inquiry was
beyond the jurisdiction of the Senate. He contended that the Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee acted in excess of its jurisdiction and legislative
purpose. One of the defendants in the case before the Sandiganbayan,
Sandejas, filed with the Court of motion for intervention. The Court granted it
and required the respondent Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to comment on
the petition in intervention.
ISSUE: W/N the Blue Ribbon inquiry was in aid of legislation
 NO.
 There appears to be no intended legislation involved. The purpose of the
inquiry to be conducted is not related to a purpose within the jurisdiction of
Congress, it was conducted to find out whether or not the relatives of
President Aquino, particularly Mr. Lopa had violated RA 3019 in connection
with the alleged sale of the 36 or 39 corporations belonging to Benjamin
"Kokoy" Romualdez to the Lopa Group.
 The power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation
is not absolute or unlimited. Its exercise is circumscribed by the Constitution.
As provided therein, the investigation must be "in aid of legislation in
follows then that the rights of persons under the Bill of Rights must be
respected, including the right to due process and the right not to be compelled
to testify against one's self.

 The civil case was already filed in the Sandiganbayan and for the Committee
to probe and inquire into the same justiciable controversy would be an
encroachment into the exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction that had
already earlier set in. The issue sought to be investigated has already been
pre-empted by the Sandiganbayan. To allow the inquiry to continue would not
only pose the possibility of conflicting judgments between the legislative
committee and a judicial tribunal.

 Finally, a congressional committee’s right to inquire is subject to all relevant
limitations placed by the Constitution on governmental action ‘including the
relevant limitations of the Bill of Rights. One of these rights is the right of an
individual to against self-incrimination. The right to remain silent is extended
to respondents in administrative investigations but only if it partakes of the
nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous to a criminal proceeding. Hence,
the petitioners may not be compelled by respondent Committee to appear,
testify and produce evidence before it only because the inquiry is not in aid of
legislation and if pursued would be violative of the principle of separation of
powers between the legislative and the judicial departments of the
government as ordained by the Constitution.
Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate Committee on Banks, Financial Institutions
and Currencies (G.R. No. 167173)
Facts:
Senator Enrile delivered a privilege speech denouncing SCB-Philippines for
selling unregistered foreign securities in violation of the Securities Regulation Code (RA
8799) and urging the Senate to immediately conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation, to
prevent the occurrence of a similar fraudulent activity in the future. Upon motion of
Senator Pangilinan, the speech was referred to respondent, which through its
Chairperson Senator Angara, set an initial hearing and invited petitioners herein to
attend the hearing. Petitioners via letter stressed that there were pending cases in court
allegedly involving the same issues subject of the legislative inquiry, thereby posing a
challenge to the jurisdiction of respondent committee to proceed with the inquiry.
Legislative investigation commenced but with the invited resource persons not being
all present, Senator Enrile moved for the issuance of subpoena and an HDO or to
include such absentees to the Bureau of Immigrations’ Watch List. During the hearing,
it was apparent that petitioners lack proper authorizations to make disclosures and lack
the copies of the accusing documents being mentioned by Senator Enrile. Thus, when
hearing adjourned, petitioners were later served with subpoenas by respondent.
Petitioner now seeks that respondent committee be enjoined from proceeding, citing
Bengzon Jr. v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, claiming that since the issue is already
preempted by the courts, the legislative investigation is an encroachment upon the
judicial powers vested solely in the courts.
Issue:
Whether the investigation in aid of legislation by respondent committee encroaches
upon the judicial power of the courts
Ruling: NO.
The unmistakable objective of the investigation, as set forth in the said resolution,
exposes the error in petitioners’ allegation that the inquiry, as initiated in a privilege
speech by the very same Senator Enrile, was simply “to denounce the illegal practice
committed by a foreign bank in selling unregistered foreign securities x x x.” This fallacy
is made more glaring when we consider that, at the conclusion of his privilege speech,
Senator Enrile urged the Senate “to immediately conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation,
so as to prevent the occurrence of a similar fraudulent activity in the future.”
Indeed, the mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before a court or a
quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation.
Otherwise, it would be extremely easy to subvert any intended inquiry by Congress
through the convenient ploy of instituting a criminal or an administrative complaint.
Surely, the exercise of sovereign legislative authority, of which the power of legislative
inquiry is an essential component, cannot be made subordinate to a criminal or an
administrative investigation.
Neither can the petitioners claim that they were singled out by the respondent
Committee. The Court notes that among those invited as resource persons were
officials of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas (BSP). These officials were subjected to the same critical scrutiny by the
respondent relative to their separate findings on the illegal sale of unregistered foreign
securities by SCB-Philippines. It is obvious that the objective of the investigation was
the quest for remedies, in terms of legislation, to prevent the recurrence of the allegedly
fraudulent activity.
Wherefore, the petition for prohibition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Petitioner: Romulo L. Neri
Respondents: Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations, Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, and Senate Committee on
National Defense and Security
Facts:
Petitioner Romulo Neri, then Director General of the National Economic and
Development Authority (NEDA), was invited by the respondent Senate Committees to
attend their joint investigation on the alleged anomalies in the National Broadband
Network (NBN) Project. This project was contracted by the Philippine Government with
the Chinese firm Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE), which involved
the amount of US$329,481,290. When he testified before the Senate Committees, he
disclosed that then Commission on Elections Chairman Benjamin Abalos, brokering for
ZTE, offered him P200 million in exchange for his approval of the NBN Project. He
further narrated that he informed President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo about
the bribery attempt and that she instructed him not to accept the bribe. However, when
probed further on what they discussed about the NBN Project, petitioner refused to
answer, invoking “executive privilege.” In particular, he refused to answer the questions
on 1.) whether or not the President followed up the NBN Project, 2.) whether or not she
directed him to prioritize it, and 3.) whether or not she directed him to approve it.
Later on, respondent Committees issued a Subpoena Ad Testificandum to
petitioner, requiring him to appear and testify on 20 November 2007. However,
Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita sent a letter dated 15 November to the
Committees requesting them to dispense with Neri’s testimony on the ground of
executive privilege. Ermita invoked the privilege on the ground that “the information
sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with
the People’s Republic of China,” and given the confidential nature in which these
information were conveyed to the President, Neri “cannot provide the Committee any
further details of these conversations, without disclosing the very thing the privilege is
designed to protect.” Thus, on 20 November, Neri did not appear before the respondent
Committees.
On 22 November, respondents issued a Show Cause Letter to Neri requiring
him to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt for his failure to attend the
scheduled hearing on 20 November. On 29 November, Neri replied to the Show Cause
Letter and explained that he did not intend to snub the Senate hearing, and requested
that if there be new matters that were not yet taken up during his first appearance, he
be informed in advance so he can prepare himself. He added that his non-appearance
was upon the order of the President, and that his conversation with her dealt with
delicate and sensitive national security and diplomatic matters relating to the impact of
the bribery scandal involving high government officials and the possible loss of
confidence of foreign investors and lenders in the Philippines. Respondents found the
explanation unsatisfactory, and later on issued an Order citing Neri in contempt and
consequently ordering his arrest and detention at the Office of the Senate Sergeant-At-
Arms until he appears and gives his testimony.
Neri filed the petition asking the Court to nullify both the Show Cause Letter
and the Contempt Order for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and stressed that his refusal to answer the
three questions was anchored on a valid claim to executive privilege in accordance with
the ruling in the landmark case of Senate vs. Ermita (G.R. No. 169777, 20 April 2006).
For its part, the Senate Committees argued that they did not exceed their authority in
issuing the assailed orders because there is no valid justification for Neri’s claim
to executive privilege. In addition, they claimed that the refusal of petitioner to answer
the three questions violates the people’s right to public information, and that the
executive is using the concept of executive privilege as a means to conceal the criminal
act of bribery in the highest levels of government.
Issue:
Whether or not the three questions that petitioner Neri refused to answer were
covered by executive privilege, making the arrest order issued by the respondent
Senate Committees void.
Discussion:
Citing the case of United States vs. Nixon (418 U.S. 683), the Court laid out
the three elements needed to be complied with in order for the claim to executive
privilege to be valid. These are: 1.) the protected communication must relate to a
quintessential and non-delegable presidential power; 2.) it must be authored, solicited,
and received by a close advisor of the President or the President himself. The judicial
test is that an advisor must be in “operational proximity” with the President; and, 3.) it
may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the information sought
“likely contains important evidence,” and by the unavailability of the information
elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
In the present case, Executive Secretary Ermita claimed executive privilege
on the argument that the communications elicited by the three questions “fall under
conversation and correspondence between the President and public officials”
necessary in “her executive and policy decision-making process,” and that “the
information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic
relations with the People’s Republic of China.” It is clear then that the basis of the claim
is a matter related to the quintessential and non-delegable presidential power of
diplomacy or foreign relations.
As to the second element, the communications were received by a close
advisor of the President. Under the “operational proximity” test, petitioner Neri can be
considered a close advisor, being a member of the President’s Cabinet.
And as to the third element, there is no adequate showing of a compelling
need that would justify the limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability of the
information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority. Presidential
communications are presumptive privilege and that the presumption can be overcome
only by mere showing of public need by the branch seeking access to such
conversations. In the present case, respondent Committees failed to show a compelling
or critical need for the answers to the three questions in the enactment of any law under
Sec. 21, Art. VI. Instead, the questions veer more towards the exercise of the legislative
oversight function under Sec. 22, Art. VI. As ruled in Senate vs. Ermita, “the oversight
function of Congress may be facilitated by compulsory process only to the extent that
it is performed in pursuit of legislation.”
Neri’s refusal to answer based on the claim of executive privilege does not
violate the people’s right to information on matters of public concern simply because
Sec. 7, Art. III of the Constitution itself provides that this right is “subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.”
Held:
The divided Supreme Court (voting 9-6) was convinced that the three
questions are covered by presidential communications privilege, and that this privilege
has been validly claimed by the executive department, enough to shield petitioner Neri
from any arrest order the Senate may issue against him for not answering such
questions.
The petition was granted. The subject Order dated January 30, 2008, citing petitioner
in contempt of the Senate Committee and directing his arrest and detention was
nullified.
Facts:
 Petitioner disclosed that then Commission on Elections ("COMELEC")
Chairman Benjamin Abalos offered him P200 Million in exchange for his
approval of the NBN Project.
 He then informed President Arroyo of the bribery attempt, in which she
instructed him not to accept the bribe.
 When probed by the senate, Neri refuses to give some more information
regarding the alleged bribery going on behind the NBN Project. When asked
further regarding the conversation between Neri and President Arroyo on
matters of the NBN project, he calls for Executive Privilege.
 Executive Privilege is the power of the Government to withhold information
from the public, the courts, and the Congress.
 The Senate issued a contempt order against Neri and directed his arrest and
detention.
Petitioner’s claims:
 The President is entitled to the confidentiality of her correspondences. This is
necessary for the protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and
even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decision-making.
 If the president is not protected by the confidentiality of conversations, it will
hamper her in the effective discharge of her duties and responsibilities. It might
also impair our economic relations with China.
Senate’s defense:
1. This is a violation to the people's right to information.
2. The Congress has a need to investigate the matter as it is crucial in their
legislation of a potential bill.
3. They contend that their Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of
Legislation are beyond the reach of this Court.
Rulings:
1. The right to information does not extend to matters recognized as ‘privileged
information’ under the separation of powers, by which the Court meant
Presidential conversations, correspondences, and discussions in closed-door
Cabinet meetings.
 2. Congress may only investigate into the areas in which it may potentially
legislate or appropriate, it cannot inquire into matters which are within the
exclusive province of one of the other branches of the government. Lacking
the judicial power given to the Judiciary, it cannot inquire into matters that are
exclusively the concern of the Judiciary. Neither can it supplant the Executive
in what exclusively belongs to the Executive.
3. The Court’s exercise of its power of judicial review is warranted because
there appears to be a clear abuse of the power of contempt on the part of
respondent Committees.
In summary:
 The Legislative Committee asks the Judiciary and the Executive branches to
heed to their rules of investigation in the aid of their legislation. They contend
that their internal procedures and deliberations should be respected and
cannot be inquried into by this Court, supposedly, in accordance with the
principle of co-equal branches of government.
 The legislative should also respect the Executive's power of "Executive
Privilege" and the judiciary's power for "Judicial Review".
 The Senate's order of Contempt issued against Neri is hereby set aside.
GARCILLANO vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Facts:
During the hype of Arroyo administration, a new controversy arises. During
the 2007 election the conversation of President Arroyo and the herein petitioner Virgilio
Garciliano, COMELEC regional director, regarding the desire of the president to have
a favourable outcome in terms of his senatoriables. Such conversation was recorded
and was played during the house of representative investigation. Because of such turn
of events, a petition was filed before the court praying that such playing of the illegally
seized communication was in violation of RA 4200 or the anti-wire tapping law. Also
such petition for injunction prays that the Senate committee be prevented from further
conducting such investigation for the basic reason that there was no proper publication
of the senate rules, empowering them to make such investigation of the unlawfully
seized documents.
Issue:
Whether or not there was proper publication of the rules as to empower the
senate to further proceed with their investigation?
Held:
No, the Supreme Court mentioned the following:
The Senate cannot be allowed to continue with the conduct of the questioned legislative
inquiry without duly published rules of procedure, in clear derogation of the
constitutional requirement.
Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that "the Senate or the
House of Representatives, or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries
in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure." The
requisite of publication of the rules is intended to satisfy the basic requirements of due
process.Publication is indeed imperative, for it will be the height of injustice to punish
or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law or rule of which he had no
notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.What constitutes publication is set forth
in Article 2 of the Civil Code, which provides that "laws shall take effect after 15 days
following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette, or in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines."
Respondents justify their non-observance of the constitutionally mandated publication
by arguing that the rules have never been amended since 1995 and, despite that, they
are published in booklet form available to anyone for free, and accessible to the public
at the Senate’s internet web page.
The Court does not agree. The absence of any amendment to the rules cannot justify
the Senate’s defiance of the clear and unambiguous language of Section 21, Article VI
of the Constitution. The organic law instructs, without more, that the Senate or its
committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation only in accordance with duly
published rules of procedure, and does not make any distinction whether or not these
rules have undergone amendments or revision. The constitutional mandate to publish
the said rules prevails over any custom, practice or tradition followed by the Senate.
The invocation by the respondents of the provisions of R.A. No. 8792,otherwise known
as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, to support their claim of valid publication
through the internet is all the more incorrect. R.A. 8792 considers an electronic data
message or an electronic document as the functional equivalent of a written document
only for evidentiary purposes.In other words, the law merely recognizes the
admissibility in evidence (for their being the original) of electronic data messages and/or
electronic documents.It does not make the internet a medium for publishing laws, rules
and regulations.
Given this discussion, the respondent Senate Committees, therefore, could not, in
violation of the Constitution, use its unpublished rules in the legislative inquiry subject
of these consolidated cases. The conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation by the Senate
has to be deferred until it shall have caused the publication of the rules, because it can
do so only "in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure."
Indeed the inquiry to be conducted by the senate in aid of legislation cannot proceed
for the reason that the rules that they will observe was not properly published as
provided by the Fundamental Law of the land. Such inquiry if allowed without
observance of the required publication will put a person’s life, liberty and property at
stake without due process of law. Also, the further assertion of the senate that they
already published such rules through their web page, in observance of the RA 8792 or
the Electronic Commerce Act was only viewed by the court as matter of evidence and
still does not conforme with what the constitution propounded.
In this regard the high court granted the petition for injunction preventing the senate to
conduct such inquiry in aid of legislation.