Evangelista v. Jarencio November 27, 1975 Martin, J.: Digest by: Perry Lao
Doctrine: Administrative may enforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations, whether or not adjudication is involved, and whether or not probable cause is shown and even before the issuance of a complaint. It is not necessary, as in the case of a warrant, that a specic charge or complaint of violation of law be pending or that the order be made pursuant to one. It is enough that the investigation investigation be for a lawfully authori!ed purpose. Facts: "he President President of the Philippines under #$ecutive #$ecutive %rder %rder &o. ' of (anuary ), *+ *+ created the Presidential Agency on -eforms and overnment %perations /PA-%0. 1e charged the agency with the responsibility to investigate all activities involving or a2ecting immoral practices, graft and corruption, smuggling, lawlessness, subversion, and all other activities which are prejudicial to the government. "he President President vested in in the Agency Agency all the powers of an investigating investigating committee including the power to summon witnesses by subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, administer oaths, ta3e testimony or evidence relevant to the investigation. %n (une ), *+4, pursuant to the powers vested in the Agency, petitioner 5uirico #vangelista as 6ndersecretary of the agency, issued to respondent 7ernando 8analastas, then Acting 9ity Public ervice %;cer of 8anila, a subpoena ad testifcandum commanding him to be and appear as witness at the o;ce of the PA-%. Instead of obeying the subpoena, 8analastas led a Petition for prohibition and
Issue !el": =%& the Agency enjoys the authority to issue subpoenas in its conduct of fact> nding investigations. investigations. ?#. 8analastas lost.
#atio: An administrative agency may be authori!ed to ma3e investigations, not only in proceedings of a legislative or judicial nature, but also in proceedings whose sole purpose is to obtain information information upon which future action of a legislative or judicial nature may be ta3en and may re@uire the attendance of witnesses in proceedings of a purely investigatory nature. "he petitioner draws its subpoena subpoena power power in #% &o. &o. ' and the enabling enabling law $es $es no distinction when and in what function the subpoena power should be e$ercised. "he
9ourt nds no reason to depart from the established rule, ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. &or could the court nd merit in the argument that the subpoena power granted by ection 4B of the -evised Administrative 9ode is restricted under the -ules of 9ourt to abridge its application. "he -ules of 9ourt re@uire that the subpoena may be issued only when a specic case is pending before a court for hearing or trial and that the hearing or trial must be in connection with the e$ercise of the courtCs judicial or adjudicatory functions before a non>judicial subpoena can be issued. 1owever, a distinction must be made that an administrative subpoena di2ers in essence from a judicial subpoena. "o an e$tent, the restrictions and @ualications referred to in ection 4B of the -A9 could mean that the restraints against infringement of constitutional rights or when the subpoena is unreasonable or oppressive and when the relevancy of the boo3s, documents or things does not appear. Administrative may enforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations, whether or not adjudication is involved, and whether or not probable cause is shown and even before the issuance of a complaint. It is not necessary, as in the case of a warrant, that a specic charge or complaint of violation of law be pending or that the order be made pursuant to one. It is enough that the investigation be for a lawfully authori!ed purpose. "he purpose of the subpoena is to discover evidence, not to prove a pending charge, but upon which to ma3e one if the discovered evidence so justies. "he administrative agency has the power of in@uisition which is not dependent upon a case or controversy in order to get evidence but can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated or even just because it wants assurance that it is not. "he subpoena meets the re@uirements for enforcement if the in@uiry is: *. =ithin the authority of the agency E. "he demand is not too indenite and F. "he information is reasonably relevant. 7or the case at bar, the anomalous transaction in @uestion fall within the authority of the Agency, and that the information sought to be elicited from 8analastas is reasonably relevant to the investigations. "he court is not unmindful that the privilege against self>incrimination e$tends in administrative investigations. 1owever, the court nds that in the present case, 8analastas is not facing any administrative charge. 1e is merely cited as a witness in connection with the fact>nding investigation of anomalies and irregularities in the 9ity overnment of 8anila with the object of submitting the assembled facts to the President or to le the corresponding charges. ince, the only purpose of the investigation is to discover facts, any unnecessary e$tension of the privilege would thus be unwise.
"he respondents would also challenge the constitutionality of #% &o. ' collaterally. 1owever, the constitutionality of e$ecutive orders cannot be collaterally impeached. 8uch more when the issue was not duly pleaded in the court below as to be acceptable for adjudication now. =1#-#7%-#, %rder of respondent (udge is #" AID#. 7ernando, (., Concurring: United States c. Morton Salt Co., penned by Justice Jackson, GIt is su;cient if the in@uiry is within the authority of the agency, the demand is not too indenite and the information sought is reasonably relevant.H 8oreover, (ustice 7ernando states that Gif he 8analastasJ could demonstrate a failure to abide by the constitutional mandate on search and sei!ure, he is not without a remedy.H "eehan3ee, (., Dissenting: =hile the subpoena commands 8analastas to appear as witness it is a fact shown by the very petition at bar that the respondent is in fact and for all intents and purposes subpoenaed as a respondent or one directly implicated with alleged bribery and graft in the said sworn statements. "herefore, respondent correctly invo3ed, Cabal s. !apunan, wherein the court through 9.(. 9oncepcion held that therein petitioner rightfully refused to ta3e the witness stand against the Presidential 9ommittee investigating since such proceedings were in substance and e2ect a criminal one, and that his position is virtually that of an accused and he therefore had the right to remain silent and invo3e the privilege against self>incrimination. "ascual, Jr. . #oard o$ %xaminers, is also in point where the accused has the right to refuse not only to answer incriminatory @uestions, but also to ta3e the witness stand.
