Republic of the
Supreme Court
PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT,
Petitioner, -
versus - SANDIGANBAYAN (Fifth Division), LUCIO TAN, MARIANO TANENGLIAN, ALLIED BANKING
CORPORATION, IRIS HOLDINGS & DEVELOPMENT CORP., VIRGO HOLDINGS & DEVELOPMENT CORP., JEWEL HOLDINGS,
INC., CARMEN KHAO TAN, FLORENCIO T. SANTOS, JR., NATIVIDAD SANTOS, FLORENCIO N.
SANTOS, JR., 4 FOREMOST FARMS, SHAREHOLDINGS,
INC., and FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION,
Respondents. |
G.R. No. 153051
Present:
PUNO, c.j.,
Chairperson,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: |
|
|
|
|
For
our resolution is the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking to set aside the
Resolutions dated
The
petition in Civil Case No. 0096 seeks the nullification of the Sequestration
Order dated
The
same petition in Civil Case No. 0096 also assails the Writ of Sequestration,
likewise dated
The
above-named private respondents alleged in the present petition that in order
to enable them to determine whether the said Sequestration Order and Writ of
Sequestration were validly issued by the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG), herein petitioner, it is necessary that the evidence, on the
basis of which such Sequestration Order and Writ of Sequestration were issued,
be produced before the Sandiganbayan for their inspection and copying.
Consequently,
they filed with the Sandiganbayan a Motion for Production and Inspection of the
following:
1. The documents, records and other evidence
considered by the PCGG and on the basis of which the PCGG issued the
Sequestration Order dated June 19, 1986 (Annex “A,” hereof) and the Writ of
Sequestration dated June 19, 1986 (Annex “B,” hereof); and
2. The minutes of the meeting(s) of the PCGG at which the Sequestration Order dated June 19, 1986 (Annex “A” hereof) and Writ of Sequestration dated June 19, 1986 (Annex “B” hereof) was authorized to be issued and which chronicles the discussion (if any) and the decision (of the PCGG Chairman and Commissioners) to issue the Sequestration Order dated June 19, 1986 (Annex “A,” hereof) and the Writ of Sequestration dated June 19, 1986 (Annex “B,” hereof).
Petitioner
PCGG opposed the motion on the ground, among others, that the description of
the documents sought to be produced and inspected is vague.
On
Petitioner
then made available certain documents to private respondents despite the fact
that it could not exactly determine what documents they were referring to.
Upon
request of counsel for private respondents, petitioner prepared certified true
copies of the documents. But said
counsel instead of accepting the documents, requested that they be brought to
the Sandiganbayan during the hearing.
The
parties then agreed that private respondents’ representatives would go back to
petitioner’s Office with a photocopying machine and that petitioner will
certify all the documents. But they did
not return.
Instead,
private respondents filed with the Sandiganbayan a Request for Subpoena Ad
Testificandum and Duces Tecum dated
On
Hence,
on
On
Petitioner
seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the
Sandiganbayan in its Resolution of
Hence,
this petition for certiorari.
Petitioner alleged that in issuing the Resolution dated
I. SECTION 4(b) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1 SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT NO MEMBER OR STAFF OF THE PCGG SHALL BE REQUIRED TO TESTIFY OR PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN ANY JUDICIAL, LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING MATTERS WITHIN ITS OFFICIAL COGNIZANCE. MS. LOURDES MAGNO, WHO IS A STAFF OF PETITIONER PCGG, CANNOT, THUS, BE COMPELLED BY A SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY IN CIVIL CASES NOS. 0096 TO 0099.
II. PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ REQUEST FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBPOENA TO MS. MAGNO IS UNREASONABLE AND OPPRESSIVE, DESIGNED MERELY TO HARASS HEREIN PETITIONER.
In
their comment on the petition, private respondents averred inter alia
that they are unaware that petitioner and members of its staff are immune from
the subpoena processes of the Sandiganbayan; that in PCGG v. Peña,[1]
the Supreme Court ruled that Section 4(b), Executive Order No. 1 does not
bestow on the PCGG or its staff any right or privilege superior to that of
other government officials or place the PCGG or its staff on a plane higher
than that of any other official of the Republic; and that the challenged subpoena
is not unreasonable and oppressive since the documents sought are properly
described and identified and material and relevant to the issues involved in
Civil Case No. 0096.
We
shall now discuss the two grounds raised by petitioner:
The Sandiganbayan may not issue a subpoena
to compel Lourdes Magno, petitioner’s Records Officer, to testify and bring
certain documents pursuant to Section 4(b) of Executive Order No. 1 which
provides:
Section 4. (a) No civil action shall lie against the commission or any member thereof for anything done or omitted in the discharge of the task contemplated by this order.
(b) No member or staff of the commission shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial, legislative or administrative proceedings concerning matters within its official cognizance.
In
Sabio v. Gordon,[2] we
held that Section 4(b) of Executive Order No. 1 was repealed by the 1987 Constitution,
thus:
A statute may be declared unconstitutional because it is not within the legislative power to enact; or it creates or establishes methods or forms that infringe constitutional principles; or its purpose or effect violates the Constitution or its basic principles. As shown in the above discussion, Section 4(b) is inconsistent with Article VI, Section 21 (Congress’ power of inquiry), Article XI, Section 1 (principle of public accountability), Article II, Section 28 (policy of full disclosure) and Article III, Section 7 (right to public information).
Significantly, Section 3, Article
VIII of the Constitution provides:
All existing laws, decrees,
executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions, and other executive
issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative
until amended, repealed, or revoked.
The clear import of this provision is that all existing laws, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions and other executive issuances inconsistent or repugnant to the Constitution are repealed.
Accordingly, petitioner cannot shield
Lourdes Magno, its Records Officer, from complying with the subpoena by
invoking the provision of Section 4(b) of Executive Order No. 1.
We likewise emphasized that:
It would seem constitutionally offensive to suppose that a member or staff member of the PCGG could not be required to testify before the Sandiganbayan or that such members were exempted from complying with orders of this Court.
As
to the second ground, suffice it to state that we cannot discern from the
records that the assailed subpoena is unreasonable or oppressive. As aptly stated by private respondents, the
documents sought are material and relevant to the issues and are properly
described and identified in their motion for its issuance.
Verily, the Sandiganbayan, in issuing
the challenged Resolutions, did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the
petition.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chief
Justice
Chairperson
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
Chief Justice