By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
CAN LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODIES CITE RESOURCE SPEAKERS IN CONTEMPT?
The power of Congress to conduct investigation in aid of legislation is not without limitations. As held in the case of Bengzon, Jr. vs. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, G.R. No. 89914 (November 20, 1991), the Supreme Court held that the “investigation must be ‘in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure’ and that ‘the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquires shall be respected.’” The Court further said that it follows then that the rights of persons under the Bill of Rights must be respected, including the right to due process and the right not to be compelled to testify against one’s self. In the same case, the Supreme Court held that the connotation of “in aid of legislation” may refer to implementation or re-examination of any law or in connection with any proposed legislation or the formulation of future legislation.
Thus, it is beyond cavil that the ongoing Senate Investigation involving dismissed Mayor of Bamban, Tarlac, Alice Guo, is in aid of legislation, particularly on the subject of proliferation of POGO in the country. It may be said that it also includes examination of laws on public officers as the allegation is that Ms. Guo was protecting a POGO hub when she was still in power. Ms. Guo is also being accused of irregularities in acquiring her citizenship, hence, it may be said that the investigation is to strengthen our civil registry laws, especially on late registration.
Can local legislative bodies though cite a resource person in contempt if he or she refuses to appear or answer questions during the investigation? This has been settled in Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete, G.R. No. 72492 (November 5, 1987) wherein the Supreme Court held that “the contempt power, as well as the subpoena power, which the framers of the fundamental law did not expressly provide for but which then the Congress has asserted essentially for self-preservation of one of the three co-equal branches of the government cannot be deemed implied in the delegation of certain legislative functions to local legislative bodies.” The Court further held that “since the existence of the contempt power in conjunction with the subpoena power in any government body inevitably poses a potential derogation of individual rights, i.e., compulsion of testimony and punishment for refusal to testify, they cannot be liberally construed to have impliedly granted such local legislative bodies.”
Hence, local legislative bodies or the local Sanggunian cannot cite a resource person in contempt for refusing to appear or if he or she appears for refusing to answer their question. They can opt to invite persons who are willing to provide the information they need to craft the local legislation in mind.