QUESTIONS FOR MODULE 2

1. Pido Sardinas had always voted in every election since he turned 18 on May 19, 1996. He
always believes that sovereignty really resides in the people. In March 2011, he graduated from
University of San Agustin College of Law and passed the Bar Examination the following year.
After his admission to the Bar, he was awarded a full scholarship by the Ford Foundation
International Fellowship Program. In August 2012, he left for the United States to pursue his
Master of Laws degree from the University of Michigan Law School in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Just before his graduation in May 2013, he hurriedly returned to the Philippines in order to file
his Certificate of Candidacy for Senator under the Ladlad Party. Pedro Baraco opposed his
candidacy on the ground that Pido Sardinas does not meet the minimum qualifications provided
by the constitution.

a) In December 2022 during his second term as senator, while Congress is not in
session, he was appointed by the President as the first Secretary of the
Department of LGBTQ, a newly created office. He resigned from his seat in
Congress, took his oath before the President and assumed office.

a. Is his appointment constitutional? (2)

Yes. Pedro Sardinas’ appointment is constitutional. Under the

1987 Constitution, the President makes appointments while the
Congress is not in session or during the recess of Congress; this
appointment is otherwise known as ad interim appointments as
contrast to the regular appointments where the President appoints the
nominee during the session of Congress and such appointment must be
given consent by the Commission on Appointments.

b. Is his assumption into office valid (2)

No. His assumption into office is not valid.

While it is true that Pedro Sardinas’ appointment is valid and
considered as an ad interim appointment, it must be taken account,
however, that the Office he is appointed to is newly created during his
2nd term as Senator which under the Constitution is considered as
Forbidden Office in reference to Article 6, section 13, in which
regardless he resigned as Senator, he can never assume office in the
newly created office during his term. He must wait for one year
period after the creation of the office before he can validly assume the
office.

b) Supposed during his second term as a senator while he was having snacks at
the canteen after conducting a committee hearing, he was arrested by the
police by virtue of the warrant issued by the court because he was charged of
abusing a minor.
a. Is the issuance of the warrant of arrest by the court valid? (2)

Yes. The issuance of the warrant of arrest is valid. Pedro Sardinas

has committed an offense which is punishable by law. Thus, by
virtue of a warrant of arrest, he can be arrested.
 b. Granting that the issuance of the warrant is valid, is the arrest in
accordance with the constitution? (2)

No. His arrest was made while the Congress is in session. His
felony of abusing the minor is an offense which carries a penalty of
imprisonment which is less than six years which in such a case, a
member of Congress has the immunity of arrest. However, if his
felony carries a penalty of more than six years of imprisonment, he
can be arrested regardless whether the Congress is in session or
not.

2. On September 24, 2020, due to the prevalent smuggling of rice from other countries, the
Senate passed a resolution calling for an investigation in aid of legislation as part of its oversight
functions. The Senate Committee issued subpoena to the secretary of the Department of
Agriculture, and an invitation to a businessman engaged in the business of importing rice for
them to appear before the committee during the investigation. Both the secretary and the
businessman refused to appear before the committee. The secretary of the DA reasoned out that
he was not given consent by the president and as needed under section 22 of Article VI, he
needed the consent of the President. In fact he is listed under Executive Order No. 464, as among
those officials who cannot appear before Congress if they don’t have the consent of the
President. The businessman gave no reason for his refusal.

a. Is the refusal to appear of the Secretary of the DA valid? (2)

No. The refusal to appear of the Secretary of the DA is not

valid. The Legislature’s power to conduct inquiry in aid of
legislation is expressly recognized in Article 6, section 21 of the
1987 Constitution where such power is inherent in the power to
legislate.

In the case of Senate vs. Ermita, it has been held that such
grant of power must be understood that a legislative body cannot
legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of vital information
with regard to conditions which the legislation is being intended to
affect or change. Thus, in cases where the legislative body does not
itself possess the required information, recourse must be acquired
to others who do possess it.

However, such power of the Legislature is not absolute;

there are recognized exemptions to such power which fall under
the rubric of “executive privilege”. This is the power of the
government to withhold information from the public, the courts,
and the Congress only to certain types of information where State’s
national security might be compromised at hand. Thus, when
Congress exercises its investigation in aid of legislation as part of
its oversight functions, the only way for department heads to
exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege.
They are not exempt by the mere fact that they are department
heads. Only one official may be exempted from this power -- the
President. Further, it has been held that it is not sufficient to merely
declare that the President or an authorized head of office has
determined to exempt themselves; certainly, Congress has the right
to know why the Executive considers the requested information as
privileged.
 Therefore, the refusal to appear of the Secretary of the DA
is not valid.

c. Can the Senate Committee compel the businessman to appear before

it? (2)
No. Senate Committee cannot compel the businessman to
appear before it.

In the case of Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, it

was clearly provided that inquiry in itself might not properly be in
aid of legislation, and thus beyond the constitutional power of
Congress. That such inquiry should not usurp judicial functions.

One possible way for Congress to avoid such result is to

indicate in its invitations to the public officials concerned, or to
any person for that matter, the possible needed statute which
prompted the need for the inquiry. Given such statement in its
invitations, along with the usual indication of the subject of inquiry
and the questions relative to and in furtherance thereof, there
would be less room for speculation on the part of the person
invited on whether the inquiry is in aid of legislation. Absence of
such, the Senate Committee cannot compel the businessman to
appear before it.

d. Is the setting up by the committee of the above-mentioned

investigation in accordance with the rulings of the Supreme Court in
the cases of Arnault v. Nazareno and Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee? (2)

In Arnault v. Nazareno, it has been held that the power of

inquiry is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative
function of the Philippine congress. That although there are no express
provisions in the constitution that invest either the House or the Senate
with the power to conduct investigations and exact testimony, such
power is implied.

On the other hand, Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon

Committee, it has been held that the power of both houses of Congress
to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not absolute or unlimited far
different of that of the Arnault Case. That the investigation must solely
be "in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure" and that "the rights of persons appearing in or affected by
such inquiries shall be respected." It follows then that the rights of
persons under the Bill of Rights must be respected, including the right
to due process and the right not to be compelled to testify against one's
self.

e. Granting that the Secretary of the DA finally appeared before the

committee, and during the hearing, for refusing to reveal whether he
personally and financially gained from the importation of rice being
implemented by his department, he was cited for contempt by the
committee. Is the citing for contempt of the Secretary of the DA valid?
(2)

Yes. Citing for contempt of the Secretary of the DA is valid. In

the case of Horacio Castillo, as penned by the Associate Justice
Gesmundo, it has been held that as long as there is a legitimate
 legislative inquiry, then the inherent power of contempt by the Senate
may be properly exercised.

f. As a consequence of being cited in contempt, the Secretary was

detained at the Senate Holding Facility. Can the Committee order his
detention up to April 11, 2022? Why (2)

Yes. There is a possibility that the Committee can order his

detention up to April 11, 2022 being the sole discretion of the
committee and by virtue of presumption of regularity.

In the case of Arnault vs. Nazareno, the Court ruled that the
Senate is a continuing body and does not cease to exist upon the
periodical dissolution of the Congress. As such, there is no time limit
to the Senate's power to punish for contempt in cases where that power
may be constitutionally exerted.

However, in Balag’s case, the court argued that the indefinite

detention of persons cited in contempt impairs their constitutional right
to liberty. That paramount public interest requires the Court to
determine such issue to ensure that the constitutional rights of the
persons appearing before a legislative inquiry of the Senate are
protected that there is “a genuine necessity” to place a limitation on the
period of imprisonment that may be imposed by the Senate citing
Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution, which obliges Congress to
respect persons appearing in its inquiry in aid of legislation.

3. A bill was filed in the House of Representatives intending to impose additional taxes for
cigarettes and liquor products in order to raise more revenues for the anti-poverty initiatives of
the government. The bill immediately passed in the House. Upon receipt of the bill from the
House, the Senate introduced its own version which is substantially different from the House
version. After the Senate approved its own version, it forwarded its own version together with
that of the house to the bicameral conference committee. The committee approved the version of
the Senate. Rep.Patongpatong objected to the action of the Senate as violative of the Constitution
because the original version of the house was not followed. Is the objection valid. (2)

No. While it is true that a tax bill must be originated in the House of
Representatives, which in this case, indeed originated in the House of Representatives, the case
of Tolentino vs. Sec. of Finance, held that if House of Representatives should pass a bill, the
Senate is not precluded from creating of what is known as “Antipacitory Bill” which
Constitution allows the Senate to make changes in the bill on the parts thereof coming from
House of Representatives and allows even further the Senate to even change the entire bill with
their own version for as long as the bill in itself was originally passed from the House of
Representatives.