Legislative Contempt Jean L. Arnault vs. Leon Nazareno (Sergeant-At-Arms, PH Senate), GR No. L-3820, July 18, 1950

SYLLABUS TITLE: Legislative Contempt
CASE TITLE: Jean L. Arnault vs. Leon Nazareno (Sergeant-at-arms, PH Senate), GR No. L-3820,
July 18, 1950
FACTS:
 This is an original petition for habeas corpus to relieve the petitioner from his
confinement in the New Bilibid Prison to which he has been committed by virtue of a
resolution adopted by the Senate on May 15, 1950, which stated that his refusal to
reveal the name of the person to whom he gave the P440,000, Petitioner shall be
committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms and imprisoned in the New Bilibid
Prison.
 In the latter part of October, 1949, the Philippine Government, through the Rural
Progress Administration, bought two estates known as Buenavista and Tambobong for
the sums of P4,500,000 and P500,000, respectively.
 Of the first sum, P1,000,000 was paid to Ernest H. Burt, a nonresident American, thru
his attorney-in-fact in the Philippines, the Associated Estates, Inc., represented by Jean
L. Arnault, for alleged interest of the said Burt in the Buenavista Estate.
 The second sum of P500,000 was all paid to the same Ernest H. Burt through his other
attorney-in-fact, the North Manila Development Co., Inc., also represented by Jean L.
Arnault, for the alleged interest of the said Burt in the Tambobong Estate.
 The original owner of the Buenavista Estate was the San Juan de Dios Hospital.
 The original owner of the Tambobong Estate was the Philippine Trust Company.
 On February 27, 1950, the Senate adopted its Resolution No. 8, which reads as follows:
Resolution Creating A Special Committee to Investigate The Buenavista And The
Tambobong Estates Deal
 The special committee created by the above resolution called and examined various
witnesses, among the most important of whom was the herein petitioner, Jean L.
Arnault.
 An intriguing question which the committee sought to resolve was that involved in the
apparent unnecessariness and irregularity of the Government's paying to Burt the total
sum of P1,500,000 for his alleged interest of only P20,000 in the two estates, which he
seemed to have forfeited anyway long before October, 1949. The committee sought to
determine who were responsible for and who benefited from the transaction at the
expense of the Government.
 Arnault testified that two checks payable to Burt aggregating P1,500,000 were delivered
to him on the afternoon of October 29, 1949; that on the same date he opened a new
account in the name of Ernest H. Burt with the Philippine National Bank in which he
deposited the two checks aggregating P1,500,000; and that on the same occasion he
draw on said account two checks; one for P500,000, which he transferred to the account
of the Associated Agencies, Inc., with the Philippine National Bank, and another for
P440,000 payable to cash, which he himself cashed.
 It was the desire of the committee to determine the ultimate recipient of this sum of
P440,000 that gave rise to the present case.
 That Jean L. Arnault, now at the bar of the Senate, be arraigned for contempt consisting
of contumacious acts committed by him during the investigation conducted by the
Special Committee created by Senate Resolution No. 8 to probe the Tambobong and
Buenavista estates
 Petition is denied.
ARGUMENTS:
PETITIONER DEFENDANT
 the questions were incriminatory in  He (Sen. Sumulong) said that the

nature and begging leave to be allowed to investigation had not been completed,
stand on his constitutional right not to be because, due to the contumacy of the
compelled to be a witness against himself. witness, his committee had not yet
determined the parties responsible for the
anomalous transaction as required by
Resolution No. 8; that, by Resolution No. 16,
his committee was empowered and directed
to continue its investigation, more
particularly to continue its examination of
the witness regarding the name of the
person to whom he gave the P440,000 and
other matters related therewith; that the
bills recommended by his committee had not
been approved by the House and might not
be approved pending the completion of the
investigation; and that those bills were not
necessarily all the measures that Congress
might deem it necessary to pass after the
investigation is finished.
 He contends that the Senate has no 
power to punish him for contempt for
refusing to reveal the name of the person to
whom he gave the P440,000, because such
information is immaterial to, and will not
serve, any intended or purported legislation
and his refusal to answer the question has
not embarrassed, obstructed, or impeded the
legislative process.
 It is argued that since the 
investigating committee has already
rendered its report and has made all its
recommendations as to what legislative
measures should be taken pursuant to its
findings, there is no necessity to force the
petitioner to give the information desired
other than that mentioned in its report
ISSUE: If the petitioner is guilty of contempt?

RULING:
Yes, the petitioner is guilty of contempt. His insistent claim before the bar of the Senate that if
he should reveal the name he would incriminate himself, necessarily implied that he knew the
name. Moreover, it is unbelievable that he gave the P440,000 to a person to him unknown.
"Testimony which is obviously false or evasive is equivalent to a refusal to testify and is
punishable as contempt, assuming that a refusal to testify would be so punishable."
Paraphrasing and applying that pronouncement here, the petitioner may not relish the restraint
of his liberty pending the fulfillment by him of his duty, but it is no less certain that the laws
under which his liberty is restrained were made for his welfare.
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. (McGrain vs. Daugherty, 273 U.S., 135; 71 L.
ed., 580; 50 A.L R., 1.) The fact that the Constitution expressly gives to Congress the power to
punish its Members for disorderly behavior, does not by necessary implication exclude the
power to punish for contempt any other person. (Anderson vs. Dunn, 6, Wheaton, 204; 5 L. ed.,
242.) But no person can be punished for contumacy as a witness before either House, unless his
testimony is required in a matter into which that House has jurisdiction to inquire.

Legislative Contempt Jean L. Arnault vs. Leon Nazareno (Sergeant-At-Arms, PH Senate), GR No. L-3820, July 18, 1950

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legislative Contempt Jean L. Arnault vs. Leon Nazareno (Sergeant-At-Arms, PH Senate), GR No. L-3820, July 18, 1950

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legislative Contempt Jean L. Arnault vs. Leon Nazareno (Sergeant-At-Arms, PH Senate), GR No. L-3820, July 18, 1950

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SYLLABUS TITLE: Legislative Contempt

 the questions were incriminatory in  He (Sen. Sumulong) said that the

ISSUE: If the petitioner is guilty of contempt?

You might also like