Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 93 views

    Legislature 27. Romero V Senator Estrada

    Uploaded by

    Rainbow clovers
    The Supreme Court ruled on several issues regarding a Senate inquiry into the investment of funds from the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) in a housing project. [1] The Court held that a pending case on the same subject did not bar the legislative inquiry, as the purposes of such inquiries and court proceedings are different. [2] It also held that the termination of the specific resolutions authorizing the inquiry meant the inquiry was concluded, rendering the case moot. [3] Finally, the Court found that the possibility of answering incriminating questions was not alone sufficient grounds to refuse participation in an inquiry, as the right against self-incrimination can be invoked in response to specific questions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Legislature 27. Romero V Senator Estrada

    Uploaded by

    Rainbow clovers
    93 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled on several issues regarding a Senate inquiry into the investment of funds from the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) in a housing project. [1] The Court held that a pending case on the same subject did not bar the legislative inquiry, as the purposes of such inquiries and court proceedings are different. [2] It also held that the termination of the specific resolutions authorizing the inquiry meant the inquiry was concluded, rendering the case moot. [3] Finally, the Court found that the possibility of answering incriminating questions was not alone sufficient grounds to refuse participation in an inquiry, as the right against self-incrimination can be invoked in response to specific questions.

    Original Description:

    Digest from classmates / Atty. Gorospe / PoliRev SY 2019-2020

    Original Title

    Legislature 27. Romero v Senator Estrada

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled on several issues regarding a Senate inquiry into the investment of funds from the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) in a housing project. [1] The Court held that a pending case on the same subject did not bar the legislative inquiry, as the purposes of such inquiries and court proceedings are different. [2] It also held that the termination of the specific resolutions authorizing the inquiry meant the inquiry was concluded, rendering the case moot. [3] Finally, the Court found that the possibility of answering incriminating questions was not alone sufficient grounds to refuse participation in an inquiry, as the right against self-incrimination can be invoked in response to specific questions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    93 views3 pages

    Legislature 27. Romero V Senator Estrada

    Uploaded by

    Rainbow clovers
    The Supreme Court ruled on several issues regarding a Senate inquiry into the investment of funds from the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) in a housing project. [1] The Court held that a pending case on the same subject did not bar the legislative inquiry, as the purposes of such inquiries and court proceedings are different. [2] It also held that the termination of the specific resolutions authorizing the inquiry meant the inquiry was concluded, rendering the case moot. [3] Finally, the Court found that the possibility of answering incriminating questions was not alone sufficient grounds to refuse participation in an inquiry, as the right against self-incrimination can be invoked in response to specific questions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    27. REGHIS M. ROMERO II, EDMOND Q. SESE, LEOPOLDO T.

    SANCHEZ, REGHIS
    M. ROMERO III, MICHAEL L. ROMERO, NATHANIEL L. ROMERO, and JEROME
    R. CANLAS, petitioners, vs. SENATOR JINGGOY E. ESTRADA and SENATE
    COMMITTEE ON LABOR, EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN RESOURCES
    DEVELOPMENT
    G.R. No. 174105. April 2, 2009
    J. Velasco, Jr.

    On August 15, 2006 and , the Senate Committee on Labor, Employment, and Human Resources
    Development (Committee) invited Reghis Romero II (RR II), as owner of RII Builders, Inc. to
    attend the August 23, 2006 Hearing pursuant to P.S. Resolution no. 537 (Inquiry in aid of
    legislation in relation to the liability for plunder of former president Ramos, et al. for the illegal
    investment of OWWA funds in the Smokey Mountain Project causing loss to OWWA
    amounting to 550.86M) and P.S. Resolution No. 543 (Inquiry in aid of legislation in relation to
    the alleged OWWA loss of 480M to focus on the culpability of then president Ramos, OWWA
    Administrator Wilhelm Soriano and R II Builders, Inc). The Committee intended the inquiry to
    aid the Senate in the review and possible amendments to the pertinent provisions of R.A. 8042,
    “the Migrant Workers Act” and to craft a much needed legislation relative to the stated subject
    matter and purpose of the aforementioned Resolutions. Romero II requested to be excused but he
    was denied because his request is unmeritorious. The Committee the invited him and the Board
    of Directors (BoD) of R-II Builders, Inc. to attend the September 4, 2006 Hearing. Senator
    Jinggoy Estrada, as Chairman of the Committee, caused the issuance of subpoena ad
    testificandum on RR II and the members of the BoD. On August 30, 2006, RR II filed a petition
    for prohibition with application for TRO assailing the constitutionality of the invitations and
    other compulsory processes issued by the Committee. Failing to secure the desired TRO sought
    in the petition, petitioner Romero II appeared at the September 4, 2006. Two days after, RR II
    filed a Manifestation with Urgent Plea for a TRO. The manifestation was followed by the filing
    on September 19, 2006 of another urgent motion for a TRO.

    Arguments:
    RHEGIS ROMERO II SENATE COMMITTEE
    the Committee intended to harass them as, the subject matter of the investigation focused
    except for RR II, none of them had even on the alleged dissipation of OWWA funds and
    been mentioned in relation to the subject of the purpose of the probe was to aid the Senate
    the investigation. determine the propriety of amending Republic
    Act No. 8042 or The Migrant Workers Act of
    1995 and enacting laws to protect OWWA
    funds in the future
    the subject matter of the investigation is sub the proposed resolutions were a proper subject
    judice owing to the pendency of the Chavez of legislative inquiry
    petition (G.R. No. 164527)
    since the investigation has been intended to petitioners’ right against self-incrimination was
    ascertain petitioners’ criminal liability for well-protected and could be invoked when
    plunder, it is not in aid of legislation incriminating questions were propounded.
    the inquiry compelled them to appear and
    testify in violation of their rights against
    self-incrimination
    unless the Court immediately issues a TRO,
    some or all of petitioners would be in danger
    of being arrested, detained, and forced to
    give testimony against their will, before the
    Court could resolve the issues raised in G.R.
    No. 164527

    ISSUES 1: W/N the pendency of a case would bar an inquiry in aid of legislation
    HELD: NO.

    The sub judice issue has been rendered moot and academic (it ceased to present a justiciable
    controversy, so that a determination of the issue would be without practical use and value) by the
    supervening issuance of the en banc Resolution of July 1, 2008 in G.R. No. 164527. The Court,
    in G.R. No. 164527, denied with finality the motion of Chavez. The sub judice (or “before a
    court or judge for consideration”) rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial
    proceedings to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the
    administration of justice. A violation of the sub judice rule may render one liable for indirect
    contempt under Sec. 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.

    Even assuming hypothetically that Chavez is still pending final adjudication by the Court, still,
    such circumstance would NOT bar the continuance of the committee investigation. On-going
    judicial proceedings do not preclude congressional hearings in aid of legislation. The Senate
    Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation provide that the filing or pendency
    of any prosecution or administrative action should not stop or abate any inquiry to carry out a
    legislative purpose.” A legislative investigation in aid of legislation and court proceedings has
    different purposes.

    Inquiry in aid of legislation Court hearings


    undertaken as tools to enable the legislative Undertaken to settle, through the application
    body to gather information and, thus, legislate of a law, actual controversies arising between
    wisely and effectively; and to determine adverse litigants and involving demandable
    whether there is a need to improve existing rights
    laws or enact new or remedial legislation,
    albeit the inquiry need not result in any
    potential legislation

    ISSUE 2: W/N the termination of the assailed investigations has mooted the instant petition
    HELD: YES.

    PS Resolution Nos. 537 and 543 were passed in 2006 and the letter-invitations and subpoenas
    directing the petitioners to appear and testify in connection with the twin resolutions were sent
    out in the month of August 2006 or in the past Congress. On the postulate that the Senate of each
    Congress acts separately and independently of the Senate before and after it, the aforesaid
    invitations and subpoenas are considered functos oficio and the related legislative inquiry
    conducted is, for all intents and purposes, terminated. The Senate as an institution is
    “continuing,” as it is not dissolved as an entity with each national election or change in the
    composition of its members. However, in the conduct of its day-to-day business, the Senate of
    each Congress acts separately and independently of the Senate before it (Neri v Senate). The
    Senate of the present Congress has not, per available records, opted to take up anew, as an
    unfinished matter, its inquiry into the investment of OWWA funds in the Smokey Mountain
    project.

    ISSUE 3: W/N the probability of answering incriminating questions is a valid ground for
    refusing to attend hearings conducted pursuant to Senate inquiry in aid of legislation
    HELD: NO.

    The Court has no authority to prohibit a Senate committee from requiring persons to appear and
    testify before it in connection with an inquiry in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly
    published rules of procedure. The right against self-incrimination may be invoked only when the
    incriminating question is being asked, since they have no way of knowing in advance the nature
    or effect of the questions to be asked of them.” That this right may possibly be violated or abused
    is no ground for denying respondent Senate Committees their power of inquiry. The consolation
    is that when this power is abused, such issue may be presented before the courts (Sabio). So long
    as the constitutional rights of witnesses x x x will be respected by Senate Committees, it [is] their
    duty to cooperate with them in their efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative
    action. The unremitting obligation of every citizen is to respond to subpoenae, to respect the
    dignity of the Congress and its Committees, and to testify fully with respect to matters within the
    realm of proper investigation.

    You might also like