Petitioner: Jose F. Bengzon JR., ABELARDO TERMULO, JOSE MANTECON, VICENTE MILLS JR.,
LEONARDO GAMBOA, KURT BACHMANN JR., JOSE V.E. JIMENEZ, ERNESTO CALUYA, AGERICO UNGSON, SUSAN ROXAS, ELVIE CASTILLO, and CYNTHIA SABIDO LIMJAP Respondent: Senate Blue Ribbon Committee AND ITS MEMBERS, rere!en"ed #$ and "%r&'(% "%e CHAIRMAN, HON. )IGBERTO TA*ADA FACTS: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
This is a petition for prohibition with praer for the issuan!e of a temporar restraining order and"or in#un!ti$e relief% to en#oin the respondent Senate Blue Ribbon !ommittee from re&uiring the petitioners to testif and produ!e e$iden!e at its in&uir into the alleged sale of the e&uit of Ben#amin '(o)o' Romualdez to the *opa +roup in thirt,si- /01 or thirt,nine /21 !orporations. 3n /4 Jul 5267% the Republi! of the Philippines% represented b the Presidential Commission on +ood +o$ernment PC++1% assisted b the Soli!itor +eneral% filed with the Sandiganbaan Ci$il Case 8o. 44/9 PC++ Case 8o. /91 entitled 'Republi! of the Philippines $s. Ben#amin '(o)o' Romualdez Romualdez%% et al.'% for re!on$ean re!on$ean!e% !e% re$ersio re$ersion% n% a!!ounting% a!!ounting% restitution restitution and damages. damages. The !omplaint was amended se$eral times The !omplaint insofar as pertinent to herein petitioners% as defendants% alleges among others that: that: efen efendan dants ts Ben#am Ben#amin in (o)o (o)o11 Romual Romualdez dez and Juliet Juliette te +omez +omez Romual Romualdez dez%% a!ting a!ting b themsel$es and"or in unlawful !on!ert with efendants Ferdinand ;.
6 September 5266% petitioner as defendants1 filed their respe!ti$e answers. + to 0 August 5266% !onfli!ting reports on the disposition b the PC++ of the 'Romualdez !orporations' were !arried in $arious metropolitan newspapers. Thus% one newspaper reported that the Romuladez firms had not been se&uestered be!ause of the opposition of !ertain PC++ offi!ials who 'had wor)ed pre$iousl as lawers of the /
•
•
•
•
Claiming that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is poised to subpoena them and re&uired their attendan!e and testimon in pro!eedings before the Committee% in e-!ess of its #urisdi!tion and legislati$e purpose% in !lear and blatant disregard of their !onstitutional rights% and to their gra$e and irreparable damager% pre#udi!e and in#ur% and that there is no appeal nor an other plain% speed and ade&uate remed in the ordinar !ourse of law% the petitioners filed the present petition for prohibition with a praer for temporar restraning order and"or in#un!ti$e relief. =n its !omment% respondent Committee !laims that this !ourt !annot properl in&uire into the moti$es of the lawma)ers in !ondu!ting legislati$e in$estigations% mu!h less !an it en#oin the Congress or an its regular and spe!ial !ommitees li)e what petitioners see) from ma)ing in&uiries in aid of legislation% under the do!trine of separation of powers% whi!h obtaines in our present sstem of go$ernment A perusal of the spee!h of Senator ;nrile re$eals that he Senator ;nrile1 made a statement whi!h was published in $arious newspapers on > September 5266 a!!using
=SS;S: •
G38 the Senate Blue Ribbon Committees in&uir has $alid legislati$e purpose and done in aid of legislationD
R*=8+:
•
83% The Court holds that% under the fa!ts% in!luding the !ir!umtan!e that petitioners are presentl impleaded as defendants in a !ase before the Sandiganbaan% whi!h in$ol$es issues intimatel related to the sub#e!t of !ontemplated in&uir before the respondet Committee% the respondent Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is hereb en#oined from !ompelling the petitioners and inter$enor to testif before it and produ!e e$iden!e at the said in&uir. Ge do not here modif these do!trines. =f we presentl rule that petitioners ma n ot be !ompelled b the respondent Committee to appear% testif and produ!e e$iden! b efore it% it is onl be!uase we hold that the &uestioned in&uir is not in aid of legislation and% if pursued% would be $iolati$e of the prin!iple of separation of powers between the legislati$e and the #udi!ial departments of go$ernment% ordained b the Constitution
