Sabio, Petitioner v. Gordon Et. Al, Respondent

Sabio, petitioner v. Gordon et.
al, respondent
G.R. No. 17430, 174318, 174177
October 17, 2006
TOPIC: The Supremacy of the Constitution
FACTS:
1. On Feb 20, 2006, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago introduced Phil. Sen. Resolution No. 455
directing an inquiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines
Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippine Communications Satellite
Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), and PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation (PHC) due to the alleged
improprieties in their operations by their respective Board of Directors.
2. On March 28, 2006, Sen. Res. No. 455 was transferred to the Committee on Government
Corporations and Public Enterprises.
3. On May 8, 2006, Chairman Camilo Sabio of PCGG was invited to be a resource person in the public
meeting jointly conducted by the committee stated above. The purpose of the public meeting was
to deliberate on Sen. Res. No. 455.
The pertinent portions of the Sen. Res. No. 455 read:
WHEREAS, in the last quarter of 2005, the representation and entertainment expense of the PHC
skyrocketed to P4.3 million, as compared to the previous year's mere P106 thousand;
WHEREAS, some board members established wholly owned PHC subsidiary called Telecommunications
Center, Inc. (TCI), where PHC funds are allegedly siphoned; in 18 months, over P73 million had been
allegedly advanced to TCI without any accountability report given to PHC and PHILCOMSAT;
WHEREAS, the Philippine Star, in its 12 February 2002 issue reported that the executive committee of
Philcomsat has precipitately released P265 million and granted P125 million loan to a relative of an
executive committee member; to date there have been no payments given, subjecting the company to
an estimated interest income loss of P11.25 million in 2004;
WHEREAS, there is an urgent need to protect the interest of the Republic of the Philippines in the PHC,
PHILCOMSAT, and POTC from any anomalous transaction, and to conserve or salvage any remaining
value of the government's equity position in these corporations from any abuses of power done by their
respective board of directors;
4. On May 9, 2006, Chairman Sabio declined the invitation because of Section 4(b) of EO No.1. An
exchange of invitation to appear before the Senate and response to not attend citing the same
statute occurred until he was arrested for contempt of court.
Section 4 (b) of E.O. No. 1, creating the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) provides
that: "No member or staff of the Commission shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any
judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding concerning matters within its official cognizance.
5. He then filed with the SC a petition for habeas corpus against the respondents. (docked as GR No.
17430)
6. PCGG nominees to Philcomsat Holdings Corp. also filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
against the same respondents. (docked as GR No. 174318)
7. Philcomsat Holdings Corp., and its officers and directors filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition against the Senate Committee indicated above. (docked as 174177)
8. The respondents countered (one of which): Section 4(b) has been repealed by the Constitution
ISSUE: WON Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 is repealed by the 1987 Constitution
RULING: (of the Supreme Court)

Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 is repealed by the 1987 Constitution.
Rule:
• We find Section 4(b) directly repugnant with Article VI, Section 21. Section 4(b) exempts the PCGG
members and staff from the Congress' power of inquiry. This cannot be countenanced. Nowhere in
the Constitution is any provision granting such exemption. The Congress' power of inquiry, being
broad, encompasses everything that concerns the administration of existing laws as well as proposed
or possibly needed statutes.It even extends "to government agencies created by Congress and
officers whose positions are within the power of Congress to regulate or even abolish. PCGG belongs
to this class.
• Section 4(b) also runs counter to the following constitutional provisions ensuring the people's access
to information:
Article II, Section 28

Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full
public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.
Article III, Section 7

The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to
official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as
well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen,
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
• 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.32 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, Article XVIII, Section 3 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.
Application:
Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is "the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must
conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. No act shall be
valid, however noble its intentions, if it conflicts with the Constitution.
Conclusion:
Consequently, this Court has no recourse but to declare Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 repealed by the 1987
Constitution.

Sabio, Petitioner v. Gordon Et. Al, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sabio, Petitioner v. Gordon Et. Al, Respondent

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

Sabio, Petitioner v. Gordon Et. Al, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sabio, petitioner v. Gordon et.

TOPIC: The Supremacy of the Constitution

The pertinent portions of the Sen. Res. No. 455 read:

RULING: (of the Supreme Court)

Article II, Section 28

Article III, Section 7

• Significantly, Article XVIII, Section 3 of the Constitution provides:

You might also like