Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    ROMERO

    Uploaded by

    MarrenSalvador

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    ROMERO

    Uploaded by

    MarrenSalvador
    15 views3 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    15 views3 pages

    ROMERO

    Uploaded by

    MarrenSalvador

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    ROMERO II VS ESTRADA

    FACTS
    Romero II, as owner of R-II Builders, Inc., received from the Legislative Committee
    an invitation, pursuant to a resolution directing the Labor Committee to
    investigate the liability for plunder of the former Pres. Ramos for the illegal
    investment of OWWA funds, in aid of legislation. The inquiry/investigation is
    specifically intended to aid the Senate in the review and possible amendments to
    the pertinent provisions of R.A. 8042, "the Migrant Workers Act" and to craft a
    much needed legislation relative to the stated subject matter and purpose of the
    aforementioned Resolutions. Romero requested to be excused from appearing and
    testifying but the same was denied by the Committee. Estrada, as Chairperson of the
    Committee, caused the service of subpoena ad testificandum on petitioners. Failing
    to secure a TRO, Romero II appeared at the investigation. Subsequently, Romero
    filed this petition for prohibition, claiming that the investigation has been
    intended to ascertain petitioners’ criminal liability for plunder, which is already
    pending before judicial courts. Hence, it is not in aid of legislation.

    ISSUE
    W/N the Legislative Committee can require petitioners to attend the investigation

    RULING
    YES.

    A legislative investigation in aid of legislation and court proceedings has


    different purposes. On one hand, courts conduct hearings or like adjudicative
    procedures to settle, through the application of a law, actual controversies
    arising between adverse litigants and involving demandable rights. On the other
    hand, inquiries in aid of legislation are undertaken as tools to enable the
    legislative body to gather information and, thus, legislate wisely and effectively,
    and to determine whether there is a need to improve existing laws or enact new or
    remedial legislation, albeit the inquiry need not result in any potential
    legislation. On-going judicial proceedings do not preclude congressional hearings
    in aid of legislation.

    The mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before a court or


    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 administrative investigation.

    Further, the resolution in this case was passed in 2006 and the letter-invitations
    and subpoenas directing the petitioners to appear and testify in connection with
    the twin resolutions were sent out in the month of August 2006 or in the past
    Congress. Senate, as an institution, is "continuing," as it is not dissolved as an
    entity with each national election or change in the composition of its members.
    However, in the conduct of its day-to-day business, the Senate of each Congress
    acts separately and independently of the Senate before it. The Rules of the Senate
    itself confirms this when it states:

    SEC. 123. Unfinished business at the end of the session shall be taken up at the
    next session in the same status.

    All pending matters and proceedings shall terminate upon the expiration of one (1)
    Congress, but may be taken by the succeeding Congress as if present[ed] for the
    first time.
    Undeniably from the foregoing, all pending matters and proceedings, unpassed bills
    and even legislative investigations, of the Senate of a particular Congress are
    considered terminated upon the expiration of that Congress and it is merely
    optional on the Senate of the succeeding Congress to take up such unfinished
    matters, not in the same status, but as if presented for the first time. The
    previous Congress should not be bound by the acts and deliberations of the Senate
    of which they had no part. In this case, the Senate of the present Congress has not
    opted to take up anew, as an unfinished matter, its inquiry into the investment of
    OWWA funds in the Smokey Mountain project.

    Furthermore, this power to conduct legislative inquiry in aid of legislation is a


    political question and the Court has no authority to prohibit a Senate committee
    from requiring persons to appear and testify before it in connection with an
    inquiry in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
    procedure. That the right against self-incrimination may possibly be violated or
    abused is no ground for denying Senate Committees their power of inquiry. The
    consolation is that when this power is abused, such issue may be presented before
    the courts.
    ------------------------

    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 rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries
    shall be respected.

    assailing the constitutionality of the invitations and other compulsory processes


    issued by the Senate Committee on Labor, Employment, and Human Resources
    Development (Committee) in connection with its investigation on the investment of
    Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) funds in the Smokey Mountain project

    THE LIABILITY FOR PLUNDER OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT RAMOS AND OTHERS, FOR THE ILLEGAL
    INVESTMENT OF OWWA FUNDS IN THE SMOKEY MOUNTAIN PROJECT
    Reghis Romero II, as owner of R-II Builders, Inc., received from the Committee an
    invitation

    (2) since the investigation has been intended to ascertain petitioners’ criminal
    liability for plunder, it is not in aid of legislation; (3) the inquiry compelled
    them to appear and testify in violation of their rights against self-incrimination

    A legislative investigation in aid of legislation and court proceedings has


    different purposes. On one hand, courts conduct hearings or like adjudicative
    procedures to settle, through the application of a law, actual controversies
    arising between adverse litigants and involving demandable rights. On the other
    hand, inquiries in aid of legislation are, inter alia, undertaken as tools to
    enable the legislative body to gather information and, thus, legislate wisely and
    effectively;17 and to determine whether there is a need to improve existing laws or
    enact new or remedial legislation,18 albeit the inquiry need not result in any
    potential legislation. On-going judicial proceedings do not preclude congressional
    hearings in aid of legislation.

    [T]he mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before a court or


    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 administrative investigation.1avvphi1.zw+
    [T]he power of inquiry––with process to enforce it––is an essential and appropriate
    auxiliary to the legislative function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely
    or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the
    legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does
    not itself possess the requisite information––which is not infrequently true––
    recourse must be had to others who possess it

    PS Resolution Nos. 537 and 543 were passed in 2006 and the letter-invitations and
    subpoenas directing the petitioners to appear and testify in connection with the
    twin resolutions were sent out in the month of August 2006 or in the past Congress.
    On the postulate that the Senate of each Congress acts separately and independently
    of the Senate before and after it, the aforesaid invitations and subpoenas are
    considered functos oficio and the related legislative inquiry conducted is, for all
    intents and purposes, terminated

    However, in the conduct of its day-to-day business, the Senate of each Congress
    acts separately and independently of the Senate before it.

    Undeniably from the foregoing, all pending matters and proceedings, i.e., unpassed
    bills and even legislative investigations, of the Senate of a particular Congress
    are considered terminated upon the expiration of that Congress and it is merely
    optional on the Senate of the succeeding Congress to take up such unfinished
    matters, not in the same status, but as if presented for the first time.

    only when the incriminating question is being asked, since they have no way of
    knowing in advance the nature or effect of the questions to be asked of them." That
    this right may possibly be violated or abused is no ground for denying respondent
    Senate Committees their power of inquiry

    You might also like