63.calida Vs Trillanes GR. No. 240873

SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA, MILAGROS O.
CALIDA, JOSEF CALIDA, MICHELLE CALIDA,

AND MARK JOREL CALIDA, PETITIONERS, VS. SENATOR ANTONIO "SONNY" TRILLANES IV, THE
COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATIONS (BLUE RIBBON
COMMITTEE), AND THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE, GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION,
AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 240873, September 03, 2019
Facts:
● This Court resolves a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Solicitor General Jose
C. Calida (Calida), Milagros O. Calida, Josef Calida, Michelle Calida, and Mark Jorel Calida.
They pray that Antonio Trillanes IV (Trillanes), then a sitting senator, be permanently
prohibited from conducting a legislative inquiry into their alleged conflict of interest on
government contracts awarded to their security services company. They also pray for
the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction.
● Petitioners claim that Proposed Senate Resolution No. 760 does not contain any
intended legislation. Instead, it merely calls for an investigation on any conflict of
interest regarding the award of government contracts to Vigilant Investigative and
Security Agency, Inc., a company owned by petitioner Calida and his family. They
likewise claim that respondent Trillanes acted without authority in issuing invitations to
the resource persons, as the invitations were sent out without the Senate body's
approval of the proposed resolution.
● On August 16, 2018, this Court directed respondent Trillanes to comment on the
Petition.
● In his Comment/Opposition, respondent Trillanes denies that the scheduled hearing was
without Senate authority or that he acted on his own. He points out that Proposed
Senate Resolution No. 760 underwent first reading and was formally and officially
referred by Senate President Vicente C. Sotto III, with the concurrence of the Senate
Body, to the Committee on Civil Service as primary committee, and the Senate
Committee on the Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Blue Ribbon
Committee) as secondary committee. Thus, he stresses that the invitations extended to
petitioners were sent in his official capacity as Committee on Civil Service chair.
● On August 31, 2018, petitioners filed a Supplemental Petition where they impleaded the
Blue Ribbon Committee and Committee on Civil Service. They prayed that these
committees also be enjoined from conducting joint hearings on Proposed Senate
Resolution No. 760.
Issues:
Whether or not respondents, then Senator Antonio "Sonny" Trillanes IV, the Committee on
Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, and the Committee on Civil Service,
Government Reorganization, and Professional Regulation, should be enjoined from conducting
hearings in aid of legislation over Proposed Senate Resolution No. 760.
Rulings:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED.SO ORDERED.
Yes. The legislative power to conduct investigations in aid of legislation is conferred by Article
VI, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:
SECTION 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees
may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
No matter how noble the intentions of respondent Committees are, they cannot assume the
power reposed upon our prosecutorial bodies and courts. The determination of who is/are
liable for a crime or illegal activity, the investigation of the role played by each official, the
determination of who should be haled to court for prosecution, and the task of coming up with
conclusions and finding of facts regarding anomalies, especially the determination of criminal
guilt, are not functions of the Senate. Congress is neither a law enforcement nor a trial agency.
Moreover, it bears stressing that no inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in
furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress, i.e., legislation. Investigations conducted
solely to gather incriminatory evidence and "punish" those investigated are indefensible. There
is no Congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure.
This Court's power of judicial review is limited to an actual case and controversy. An actual case
and controversy exist when there is a conflict of legal rights or opposite legal claims capable of
judicial resolution and specific relief. The controversy must be real and substantial and must
require a specific relief that courts can grant.
This Court also takes judicial notice that respondent Trillanes has reached the end of his two-
year term as senator. Thus, the petitioners' prayer for this Court to permanently prohibit him
from conducting an investigation into their supposed conflict of interest has likewise been
rendered moot.

63.calida Vs Trillanes GR. No. 240873

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

63.calida Vs Trillanes GR. No. 240873

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

63.calida Vs Trillanes GR. No. 240873

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA, MILAGROS O.

CALIDA, JOSEF CALIDA, MICHELLE CALIDA,

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED.SO ORDERED.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.