Arnault v Baltazar G.R. No. L-6749 Digest

G.R. No. L-6749 July 30, 1955

Labrador, J.:                                               

Topic: Legislative power

Facts: 

1.       The controversy arose out of the Government's purchase of 2 estates, the Buenavista and Tambobong Estates. Petitioner was the attorney in-fact of Ernest H. Burt in the negotiations for the purchase which was effected. The price paid for both estates was P5, 000,000. 

2.       Thereafter, the Senate adopted Resolution No. 8 creating a Special Committee to determine the validity of the purchase and whether the price paid was fair and just. During the said Senate investigation, petitioner was asked to whom a part of the purchase price, or P440, 000, was delivered. Petitioner refused to answer this question, hence the Committee cited him in contempt for contumacious acts and ordered his commitment to the custody of the Sergeant at-arms of the Philippines Senate and imprisoned in the new Bilibid Prison he reveals to the Senate or to the Special Committee the name of the person who received the P440, 000 and to answer questions pertinent thereto. Petitioner filed a habeas corpus proceeding.

3.       CFI ruled that the continued detention and confinement of petitioner pursuant to a Senate Resolution No. 114, is illegal, and that the Senate committed a clear abuse of discretion in not considering his answer naming one Jess D. Santos as the person to whom delivery of the sum of P440,000 was made. Further, on the ground that that petitioner, by his answer has purged himself of contempt and is consequently entitled to be released and discharged.

ISSUE: W/N the Senate has the power to punish the petitioner for contempt

 YES

1.       The Congress or any of its bodies has the power to punish recalcitrant witnesses. This is implied or incidental or necessary to the exercise of legislative power. The 1987 Constitution adopted the principle of separation of powers, making each branch supreme within the realm of its respective authority; it must have intended each department's authority to be full and complete, independent of the other's authority and power.

2.       Provided that contempt is related to the exercise of the legislative power and is committed in the course of the legislative process, the legislature's authority to deal with the defiant and contumacious witness should be supreme, and unless there is a manifest and absolute disregard of discretion and a mere exertion of arbitrary power coming within the reach of constitutional limitations, the exercise of the authority is not subject to judicial interference.

3.       The process by which a contumacious witness is dealt with by the legislature in order to enable it to exercise its legislative power or authority must be distinguished from the judicial process wherein offenders are brought to the courts of justice for punishment that criminal law imposes upon them. The former falls exclusively within the legislative authority, the latter within the domain of the courts; because the former is a necessary concomitant of the legislative power or process, while the latter has to do with the enforcement and application of the criminal law.

ISSUE 2: W/N petitioner has already purged himself of contempt

4.       No. It is true that he gave a name, Jess D. Santos, as the person to whom delivery of the sum of P440, 000 was made. However, the Senate Committee refused to believe that this is the real name of the person whose identity is being the subject of the inquiry. The Senate, therefore, held that the act of the petitioner continued the original contempt, or reiterated it.

5.       Finally, it is improper for the courts to declare that the continued confinement is an abuse of the legislative power and thereby interfere in the exercise of the legislative discretion.

Arnault v Nazareno G.R. No. L-3820 Digest

Arnault v Nazareno digest             

G.R. No. L-3820 July 18, 1950

Ozaeta, J.:

Topic: Legislative inquiry

Facts:

1. The controversy arose out of the Governments purchase of 2 estates. Petitioner was the attorney in-fact of Ernest H. Burt in the negotiations for the purchase of the Buenavista and Tambobong Estates by the Government of the Philippines. The purchase was effected and the price paid for both estates was P5,000,000. The Senate adopted Resolution No. 8 creating a Special Committee to determine the validity of the purchase and whether the price paid was fair and just. During the said Senate investigation, petitioner was asked to whom a part of the purchase price, or P440,000, was delivered. Petitioner refused to answer this question, hence the Committee cited him in contempt for contumacious acts and ordered his commitment to the custody of the Sergeant at-arms of the Philippines Senate and imprisoned in the new Bilibid Prison he reveals to the Senate or to the Special Committee the name of the person who received the P440,000 and to answer questions pertinent thereto.

2.  It turned out that the Government did not have to pay a single centavo for the Tambobong Estate as it was already practically owned by virtue of a deed of sale from the Philippine Trust Company and by virtue of the recession of the contract through which Ernest H. Burt had an interest in the estate. An intriguing question which the committee sought to resolve was that involved in the apparent irregularity of the Government's paying to Burt the total sum of P1,500,000 for his alleged interest of only P20,000 in the two estates, which he seemed to have forfeited anyway long before October, 1949. The committee sought to determine who were responsible for and who benefited from the transaction at the expense of the Government.

3. Arnault testified that two checks payable to Burt aggregating P1,500,000 were delivered to him; and that on the same occasion he draw on said account two checks; one for P500,000, which he transferred to the account of the Associated Agencies, Inc., with PNB, and another for P440,000 payable to cash, which he himself cashed.

4. Hence, this petition on following grounds:

a)        Petitioner contends that the Senate has no power to punish him for contempt for refusing to reveal the name of the person to whom he gave the P440,000, because such information is immaterial to, and will not serve, any intended or purported legislation and his refusal to answer the question has not embarrassed, obstructed, or impeded the legislative process.

b)   Petitioner contended that the Senate lacks authority to commit him for contempt for a term beyond its period of legislative session, which ended on May 18, 1950. 

c)   Also contended that he would incriminate himself if he should reveal the name of the person

ISSUE: W/N either House of Congress has the power to punish a person not a member for contempt

YES.

Once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the jurisdiction of a legislative body to make, the investigating committee has the power to require a witness to answer any question pertinent to that inquiry, subject of course to his constitutional right against self-incrimination. The inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the legislative body to make, must be material or necessary to the exercise of a power in it vested by the Constitution, such as to legislate, or to expel a Member; and every question which the investigator is empowered to coerce a witness to answer must be material or pertinent to the subject of the inquiry or investigation. So a witness may not be coerced to answer a question that obviously has no relation to the subject of the inquiry. Note that, the fact that the legislative body has jurisdiction or the power to make the inquiry would not preclude judicial intervention to correct a clear abuse of discretion in the exercise of that power. 

 It is not necessary for the legislative body to show that every question propounded to a witness is material to any proposed or possible legislation; what is required is that is that it be pertinent to the matter  under inquiry. 

As to the self-incrimination issue, as against witness's inconsistent and unjustified claim to a constitutional right, is his clear duty as a citizen to give frank, sincere, and truthful testimony before a competent authority. The state has the right to exact fulfillment of a citizen's obligation, consistent of course with his right under the Constitution.

The resolution of commitment here in question was adopted by the Senate, which is a continuing body and which does not cease exist upon the periodical dissolution of the Congress or of the House of Representatives. There is no limit as to time to the Senate's power to punish for contempt in cases where that power may constitutionally be exerted as in the present case. That power subsists as long as the Senate, which is a continuing body, persists in performing the particular legislative function involved.

Coseteng v Mitra G.R. No. 86649 Digest

Coseteng v. Mitra (Digest)

G.R. No. 86649 July 12, 1990

Topic: Commission on Appointments

Facts:

1.          The congressional elections of May 11, 1987 resulted in the election to the House of the candidates of diverse political parties such as the PDP-Laban, Lakas ng Bansa (LB), Liberal Party (LP), NP-Unido, Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan (KBL), Panaghiusa, Kababaihan Para sa Inang Bayan (KAIBA), and some independents. Petitioner Anna Dominique M.L. Coseteng was the only candidate elected under the banner of KAIBA.

2.           Then, House , upon nomination by the Majority Floor Leader, Cong. Francisco Sumulong, elected from the Coalesced Majority, eleven (11) out of twelve (12) congressmen to represent the House in the Commission on Appointments (CA).

3.         Upon nomination of the Minority Floor Leader, the House elected Honorable Roque Ablan, Jr., KBL, as the 12^th CA member, representing the Coalesced Minority in the House.

4.            A year later, the LDP was organized as a political party. As 158 out of 202 members of the House affiliated with it the House committees, including the House representation in the CA, had to be reorganized to conform with the new political alignments.

5.      Petitioner Coseteng wrote a letter to Speaker Ramon Mitra requesting that as representative of KAIBA, she be appointed as a member of the CA and HRET. Her request was endorsed by nine (9) congressmen. After the reorganization, Congressman Ablan, KBL, was retained as the 12th member representing the House minority.

6.       Hence the petition of for Extraordinary legal writs by Coseteng to declare as null and void the election of respondent Ablan, Verano-Yap, Romero, Cuenco, Mercado, Bandon, Cabochan, Imperial, Lobregat, Beltran, Locsin, and Singson, as members of the Commission on Appointments, to enjoin them from acting as such and to enjoin also the other respondents from recognizing them as members of the Commission on Appointments on the theory that their election to that Commission violated the constitutional mandate of proportional representation on following grounds:

a.      the New Majority (158 LDP members out of the 202 members of the House) is entitled to only nine (9) seats out of the twelve to be filled by the House;

b.    the members representing the political parties, or coalitions thereof, must be nominated by their respective political parties or coalitions;

c.       the nomination and election of respondent Verano-Yap by the respondents as representative of the minority was clearly invalid; and

d.   that similarly invalid was the retention of respondent Ablan as Minority member in the Commission because he was neither nominated nor elected as such by the minority party or parties in the House.

7.        Petitioner Coseteng  further alleged that she is qualified to sit in the CA as a representative of the Minority because she has the support of nine (9) other congressmen and congresswomen of the Minority .

8.           Respondent’s contention was that: (1) that the legality of the reorganization of the CA is a political question, hence, outside the jurisdiction of this Court to decide, and (2) that in any case, the reorganization was "strictly in consonance with Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution" i.e., on the basis of proportional representation of the political parties, considering the majority coalition "as a form of a political party"

ISSUE: W/N the members of the House in the Commission on Appointments were chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties therein as provided in Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution

YES.

1.       The Court held that the petition should be dismissed, not because it raises a political question, (which it does not), but because the revision of the House representation in the CA is based on proportional representation of the political parties therein as provided in Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Moreover, there is no merit in the petitioner's contention that the House members in the CA should have been nominated and elected by their respective political parties, as they were nominated by their respective floor leaders in the House. They were elected by the House (not by their party) in accordance with the Constitution. The validity of their election to the Commission on Appointments — eleven (11) from the Coalesced Majority and one from the minority — is unassailable.

2.            There are 160 members of the LDP in the House. They represent 79% of the House membership (which may be rounded out to 80%). Eighty percent (80%) of 12 members in the Commission on Appointments would equal 9.6 members, which may be rounded out to ten (10) members from the LDP. The remaining two seats were apportioned to the LP (respondent Lorna Verano-Yap) as the next largest party in the Coalesced Majority and the KBL (respondent Roque Ablan) as the principal opposition party in the House. There is no doubt that this apportionment of the House membership in the Commission on Appointments was done "on the basis of proportional representation of the political parties therein.

3.         The other political parties or groups in the House, such as petitioner's KAIBA (which is presumably a member also of the Coalesced Majority), are bound by the majority's choices. Even if KAIBA were to be considered as an opposition party, its lone member (petitioner Coseteng) represents only .4% or less than 1% of the House membership, hence, she is not entitled to one of the 12 House seats in the Commission on Appointments. To be able to claim proportional membership in the Commission on Appointments, a political party should represent at least 8.4% of the House membership, i.e., it should have been able to elect at least 17 congressmen or congresswomen.

4.      The indorsements of the nine (9) congressmen and congresswomen in favor of the petitioner's election to the Commission are inconsequential because they are not members of her party and they signed identical indorsements in favor of her rival, respondent Congresswoman Verano-Yap.