JEAN L. ARNAULT, petitioner,
vs.
LEON NAZARENO, Sergeant-at-arms, Philippine Senate, and EUSTAQUIO BALAGTAS, Director of Prisons, respondents.
No. L-3820, 87 Phil 29 [July 18, 1950]
En Banc ; Justice Ozaeta
The contempt power of the legislative body extends to the end of the last session terminating the existence of that body (i.e. at the adjournment of the last session)
Facts:
The Government, through the Rural Progress Administration bought the Buenavista and Tambobong Estates. The entire amount allocated to buy said estates was given to a certain Burt, through his representative petitioner Arnault. Because of the anomalies regarding the sale of said estates, the Senate created a special committee to investigate the Buenavista and Tambobong Estates deal. Arnault was called as a witness. The committee sought to determine who were responsible for and who benefited from the transaction at the expense of the Government. Arnault testified that he delivered two checks amounting to P1.5 million to Burt and deposited it in an account. Further, he testified that he drew on said account 2 checks: one P500,000 which he transferred to another account, and another P440,000 payable to cash, which he himself cashed. When asked by the Senate committee to reveal the name to whom he gave the P440,000, he refused and asserted that all the transactions were legal but refuses to answer because it may be later used against him. In other words, he invoked his right against self-incrimination. Senate committee cited Arnault in contempt and ordered him imprisoned at New Bilibid Prison until such time he reveals the name sought. Arnault now petitions for habeas corpus. He avers the Senate has no power to punish him for contempt because such information is immaterial to, and will not serve, any intended or purported legislation.
Issues:
(1) Does the Senate have the power to cite Arnault in contempt and order his imprisonment?
(2) Does the Senate have the authority to commit Arnault for contempt for a term beyond its period of legislative session, which ended on May 18, 1950?
(3) May Arnault be relieved from answering the query by merely declaring that to do so is self-incriminating?
Held:
(1) 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 to his constitutional right against selfincrimination. 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,* and every question xxx 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. But it does not follow that every question xxx must be material to any proposed or possible legislation. The necessity or lack of necessity for legislative action and the xxx character of the action itself are determined by the sum total of the information to be gathered as a result of the investigation, and not by a fraction of such information elicited from a single question. The question which Arnault refused to answer is pertinent to the matter under inquiry. The Special Committee, under the Senate Resolution creating it, is required to determine the parties responsible for the Buenavista and Tambobong estates deal, and it is obvious that the name of the person to whom Arnault gave the P440,000 involved in said deal is pertinent to that determination. It is in fact the very thing sought to be determined. It is not necessary, as Arnault contends, 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.
(2) Yes. There is no sound reason to limit the power of the legislative body to punish for contempt to the end of every session and not to the end of the last session terminating the existence of that body (until the adjournment of the last session of the Second Congress in 1953).*** The very reason for the exercise of the power to punish for contempt is to enable the legislative body to perform its constitutional function without impediment or obstruction. To rule otherwise would be to defeat that purpose. In this case, as it was the Senate that committed Arnault, the Senate being a continuing body, there is no limit as to time the Senate’s power to punish for contempt. Arguably, the Senate may abuse such continuing power and keep the witness in prison for life. In such cases, the portals of this Court are always open to those whose rights might thus be transgressed.
(3) No. Since according to Arnault himself the transaction was legal, and that he gave the P440,000 to a representative of Burt in compliance with the latter’s verbal instruction, there is no basis upon which to sustain his claim that to reveal the name of that person might incriminate him.
* or to expel a Member
** Notably, the 1935 Constitution under which this case was decided does not contain a provision on legislative inquiry similar to Art VI, Sec 21 of the present Constitution. Nevertheless, the Court ruled that Congress has the implied power to conduct such investigations for the 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 effect 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 do possess it. Experience has shown that mere requests for such information are often unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion is essential to obtain what is needed. (Arnault v. Nazareno, No. 87 Phil 29)
*** The Second Congress was constituted in 1949, and was to expire in 1953. The resolution of the Senate committing Arnault was adopted during the first session of the Second Congress in 1950.
LAW I.Q. 