Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
a violation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> constitutionally mandated fiscal autonomy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> judiciary; and (d) an assault<br />
on <strong>the</strong> independence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> judiciary. 121<br />
Without going into <strong>the</strong> merits <strong>of</strong> petitioners Alfonso, et. al.'s claims, it is <strong>the</strong> studied opinion <strong>of</strong><br />
this Court that <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> constitutionality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> said Resolution and resulting legislative<br />
inquiry is too far removed from <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> second impeachment complaint.<br />
Moreover, <strong>the</strong> resolution <strong>of</strong> said issue would, in <strong>the</strong> Court's opinion, require it to form a rule <strong>of</strong><br />
constitutional law touching on <strong>the</strong> separate and distinct matter <strong>of</strong> legislative inquiries in general,<br />
which would th<strong>us</strong> be broader than is required by <strong>the</strong> facts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se consolidated cases. This<br />
opinion is fur<strong>the</strong>r streng<strong>the</strong>ned by <strong>the</strong> fact that said petitioners have raised o<strong>the</strong>r grounds in<br />
support <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir petition which would not be adversely affected by <strong>the</strong> Court's ruling.<br />
En passant, this Court notes that a standard for <strong>the</strong> conduct <strong>of</strong> legislative inquiries has already<br />
been enunciated by this Court in Bengzon, Jr. v. Senate Blue Ribbon Commttee, 122 viz:<br />
The 1987 Constitution expressly recognizes <strong>the</strong> power <strong>of</strong> both ho<strong>us</strong>es <strong>of</strong> Congress to<br />
conduct inquiries in aid <strong>of</strong> legislation. Th<strong>us</strong>, Section 21, Article VI <strong>the</strong>re<strong>of</strong> provides:<br />
The Senate or <strong>the</strong> Ho<strong>us</strong>e <strong>of</strong> Representatives or any <strong>of</strong> its respective committees may<br />
conduct inquiries in aid <strong>of</strong> legislation in accordance with its duly published rules <strong>of</strong><br />
procedure. The rights <strong>of</strong> persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be<br />
respected.<br />
The power <strong>of</strong> both ho<strong>us</strong>es <strong>of</strong> Congress to conduct inquiries in aid <strong>of</strong> legislation is not,<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore absolute or unlimited. Its exercise is circumscribed by <strong>the</strong> afore-quoted<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Constitution. Th<strong>us</strong>, as provided <strong>the</strong>rein, <strong>the</strong> investigation m<strong>us</strong>t be "in aid<br />
<strong>of</strong> legislation in accordance with its duly published rules <strong>of</strong> procedure" and that "<strong>the</strong><br />
rights <strong>of</strong> persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected." It follows<br />
<strong>the</strong>n that <strong>the</strong> right rights <strong>of</strong> persons under <strong>the</strong> Bill <strong>of</strong> Rights m<strong>us</strong>t be respected, including<br />
<strong>the</strong> right to due process and <strong>the</strong> right not be compelled to testify against one's self. 123<br />
In G.R. No. 160262, intervenors Romulo B. Macalintal and Pete Quirino Quadra, while joining<br />
<strong>the</strong> original petition <strong>of</strong> petitioners Candelaria, et. al., introduce <strong>the</strong> new argument that since <strong>the</strong><br />
second impeachment complaint was verified and filed only by Representatives Gilberto Teodoro,<br />
Jr. and Felix William Fuentebella, <strong>the</strong> same does not fall under <strong>the</strong> provisions <strong>of</strong> Section 3 (4),<br />
Article XI <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Constitution which reads:<br />
Section 3(4) In case <strong>the</strong> verified complaint or resolution <strong>of</strong> impeachment is filed by at<br />
least one-third <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> Members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ho<strong>us</strong>e, <strong>the</strong> same shall constitute <strong>the</strong> Articles <strong>of</strong><br />
Impeachment, and trial by <strong>the</strong> Senate shall forthwith proceed.<br />
They assert that while at least 81 members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ho<strong>us</strong>e <strong>of</strong> Representatives signed a Resolution<br />
<strong>of</strong> Endorsement/Impeachment, <strong>the</strong> same did not satisfy <strong>the</strong> requisites for <strong>the</strong> application <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
afore-mentioned section in that <strong>the</strong> "verified complaint or resolution <strong>of</strong> impeachment" was not<br />
filed "by at least one-third <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> Members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ho<strong>us</strong>e." With <strong>the</strong> exception <strong>of</strong><br />
Representatives Teodoro and Fuentebella, <strong>the</strong> signatories to said Resolution are alleged to have