EN BANC
SPOUSES
PNP DIRECTOR ELISEO D. DELA PAZ (Ret.) and MARIA FE C. DELA PAZ, Petitioners, - versus - SENATE COMMITTEE ON
FOREIGN RELATIONS and the SENATE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS JOSE BALAJADIA, JR., Respondents. |
|
G.R.
No. 184849 Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: February
13, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
NACHURA, J.:
This
is a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition[1] under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed on October 28, 2008 by petitioners-spouses
General (Ret.) Eliseo D. dela Paz (Gen. Dela Paz) and Mrs. Maria Fe C. dela Paz
(Mrs. Dela Paz) assailing, allegedly for having been rendered with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the orders of
respondent Senate Foreign Relations Committee (respondent Committee), through
its Chairperson, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago (Senator Santiago), (1)
denying petitioners’ Challenge to Jurisdiction with Motion to Quash Subpoenae
and (2) commanding respondent Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Jose Balajadia, Jr.
(Balajadia) to immediately arrest petitioners during the Senate committee
hearing last October 23, 2008. The
petition thus prays that respondent Committee be enjoined from conducting its
hearings involving petitioners, and to enjoin Balajadia from implementing the
verbal arrest order against them.
The
antecedents are as follow –
On
October 6, 2008, a Philippine delegation of eight (8) senior Philippine
National Police (PNP) officers arrived in
On
October 11, 2008, Gen. Dela Paz was apprehended by the local authorities at the
P6,930,000.00] found in his luggage.
In addition, he was also found to have in his possession 45,000 euros (roughly
equivalent to P2,970,000.00).
Petitioners
were detained in
On
October 21, 2008, Gen. Dela Paz arrived in
On
October 23, 2008, respondent Committee held its first hearing. Instead of attending the hearing, petitioners
filed with respondent Committee a pleading denominated Challenge to Jurisdiction with Motion to Quash Subpoena.[2] Senator Santiago emphatically defended
respondent Committee’s jurisdiction and commanded Balajadia to arrest
petitioners.
Hence,
this Petition.
Petitioners
argue that respondent Committee is devoid of any jurisdiction to investigate
the
Respondent
Committee filed its Comment[3] on
January 22, 2009.
The
petition must inevitably fail.
First.
Section 16(3), Article VI of the Philippine Constitution states:
“Each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings.”
This
provision has been traditionally construed as a grant of full discretionary
authority to the Houses of Congress in the formulation, adoption and
promulgation of its own rules. As such,
the exercise of this power is generally exempt from judicial supervision and
interference, except on a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use
of the power as will constitute a denial of due process.[4]
The
challenge to the jurisdiction of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, raised
by petitioner in the case at bench, in effect, asks this Court to inquire into
a matter that is within the full discretion of the Senate. The issue partakes of the nature of a
political question that, in Tañada v.
Cuenco,[5] was characterized as a question which,
under the Constitution, is to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated
to the legislative or executive branch of the government. Further, pursuant to this constitutional
grant of virtually unrestricted authority to determine its own rules, the
Senate is at liberty to alter or modify these rules at any time it may see fit,
subject only to the imperatives of quorum, voting and publication.
Thus,
it is not for this Court to intervene in what is clearly a question of policy,
an issue dependent upon the wisdom, not the legality, of the Senate’s action.
Second.
Even if it is within our power to inquire into the validity of the
exercise of jurisdiction over the petitioners by the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, we are convinced that respondent Committee has acted within the
proper sphere of its authority.
Paragraph
12, Section 13, Rule 10 of the Senate Rules provides:
12) Committee on Foreign Relations. – Fifteen (15) members. All matters relating to the relations of the Philippines with other nations generally; diplomatic and consular services; the Association of Southeast Asian Nations; the United Nations Organization and its agencies; multi-lateral organizations, all international agreements, obligations and contracts; and overseas Filipinos.
A
reading of the above provision unmistakably shows that the investigation of the
The
Furthermore, the matter affects
Philippine international obligations. We
take judicial notice of the fact that the
currency across borders.[6] The
Third. The Philippine Senate has decided that the
legislative inquiry will be jointly conducted by the respondent Committee and
the Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations
(Blue Ribbon Committee).
Pursuant to paragraph 36, Section 13,
Rule 10 of the Senate Rules, the Blue Ribbon Committee may conduct
investigations on all matters relating to malfeasance, misfeasance and
nonfeasance in office by officers and employees of the government, its
branches, agencies, subdivisions and instrumentalities, and on any matter of
public interest on its own initiative or brought to its attention by any of its
members. It is, thus, beyond cavil that
the Blue Ribbon Committee can investigate Gen. Dela Paz, a retired PNP general and
member of the official PNP delegation to the INTERPOL Conference in
Fourth. Subsequent to Senator Santiago’s verbal
command to Balajadia to arrest petitioners, the Philippine Senate issued a
formal written Order[7] of
arrest, signed by ten (10) senators, with the Senate President himself
approving it, in accordance with the Senate Rules.
Fifth. The Philippine
Senate has already published its Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid
of Legislation in two newspapers of general circulation.[8]
Sixth. The arrest order issued against the petitioners has been rendered
ineffectual. In the legislative inquiry
held on November 15, 2008, jointly by the respondent Committee and the Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee, Gen. Dela Paz voluntarily appeared and answered the questions
propounded by the Committee members.
Having submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Senate Committees,
there was no longer any necessity to implement the order of arrest. Furthermore, in the same hearing, Senator
Santiago granted the motion of Gen. Dela Paz to dispense with the presence of
Mrs. Dela Paz for humanitarian considerations.[9] Consequently, the order for her arrest was
effectively withdrawn.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DISMISSED for lack of
merit and for being moot and academic.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice
|
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O
N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-21.
[2]
[3]
[4] See Morrero v. Bocar, 37 O.G. 445.
[5] 100 Phil. 101 (1957).
[6] Art. 14(2) of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption provides –
State parties shall consider implementing feasible measures to detect and monitor the movement of cash and appropriate negotiable instruments across their borders, subject to safeguards to ensure proper use of information and without impeding in any way the movement of legitimate capital. Such measures may include a requirement that individuals and businesses report the cross border transfer of substantial quantities of cash and appropriate negotiable instruments.
The United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime provides –
Art. 7(1), Each State Party:
(a) Shall institute a comprehensive domestic and regulatory and supervisory regime for banks and non-bank financial institutions and, where appropriate, other bodies particularly susceptible to money-laundering, within its competence, in order to deter and detect all forms of money-laundering, which regime shall emphasize requirements for customer identification, record-keeping and the reporting of suspicious transactions;
Art. 7(2):
State Parties shall consider implementing feasible measures to detect and monitor the movement of cash and appropriate negotiable instruments across their borders, subject to safeguards to ensure proper use of information and without impeding in any way the movement of legitimate capital. Such measures may include a requirement that individuals and businesses report the cross-border transfer of substantial quantities of cash and appropriate negotiable instruments. (Underscoring supplied.)
[7] Rollo, pp. 138-139.
[8] Publication was made in the
October 31, 2008 issues of the Manila
Daily Bulletin and the
[9] Rollo, p. 143.