Ong vs Senate G.R. No.

257401, March 28, 2023

TOPIC: Legislative Investigation

FACTS:

This is a consolidated petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Linconn Ong and Michael Yang,
which ultimately pleads for a clearer definition and delineation of the scope and extent of the
Senate’s power of inquiry in aid of legislation.

The Committee conducted an investigation “in aid of legislation” following a COA report pertaining
to DOH’s expenditures in relation to Covid19. It sent invitations via email to resource persons,
referring them as subject matter experts of the inquiry and requested them to attend meetings.

After their first hearing on August 18 2021, the committee found out that Pharmally (corporation
where Ong is a member of the Board of Directors and the Supply Chain Manager), incorporators of
which were identified to be linked with Michael Yang, was able to secure a total of P8.868 Billion
worth of contracts from the Procurement Service of the Department of Budget and Management
(PS- DBM)

On August 23, Risa Hontiveros delivered a privileged speech which was later referred to the
committee. The same day until August 25, 2021, resolutions were filed by other senators to the
committee, all pertaining to the expenditures related to the government’s response to Covid19.

On August 26, the committee issued a subpoena on to resources from Pharmally including Michael
Yang to attend a hearing on August 27. They all did not make it.

On September 4, subpoena was also sent to Ong to attend a September 7 hearing. They also failed
to attend the hearing. Thereafter, the committee issued orders citing the resources, including Yang
and Ong in contempt for their failure to attend the scheduled meetings. Their arrest and detention
at the office of the senate sergeant at arms was also ordered until they appear and give their
testimony.

Linconn Ong Case

• Ong said he only learned about the senate order through media reports on September 7. He
said he did not receive any subpoena or invitation from the committee. Still he attended the
hearing on September 10.
• During the hearing he was cited in contempt again for “testifying falsely and evasively.”
Additional hearings were conducted on September 13, 17 and 21 with the attendance of
Ong. On September 21, he was arrested and was detained at the senate complex in pasay
on the authority of the contempt order.
• Ong raised the following:
o challenges the constitutionality of (1) Section 18 of the Senate Rules of Procedure
Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation (Senate Rules on Inquiries) and (2) Section
6, Article 6 of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee in relation to the contempt for his
alleged act of “testifying falsely or evasively” in the senate hearing.
o He said that the basis of contempt order are vague, because they have no clear
standards as to what constitutes “testifying falsely or evasively.”
 o He said that his rights were not respected, in violation of injunction under Section
21, Article VI of the Constitution.
o In ruling the falsity of his testimony, the senate illegally encroached the domain of
the judiciary
o The respondent senate gravely abused its contempt power

Michael Yang

• Yang said he received the August 27 subpoena in his office and he was required to attend
the hearing at 1:30pm the same day. However, he was in subic where telephone signal was
poor so he was not contacted.
• Yang said he was not informed and July served of the subpoena. He said that he also
learned about the September 7 hearing through friends and online news. He was only able
to hire a lawyer on September 6. He was issued an arrest warrant in the afternoon of
September 7, 2021. Nevertheless, he also expressed intent to cooperate and appeared
before the court on September 10.
• Yang was issued a contempt order on September 10, 2021 for giving evasive answers.
Thereafter, Yang attended hearings on September 17, 21 and 24. Subsequently, lookout
bulletin was issued against Yang. On November 9, the committee also issued a letter asking
Yang to supply documents and information pertaining to his property and business
interests.
• Filed petition seeking to
o nullify the arrest orders dated September 7 and September 10, 2021
o Seeks to nullify the lookout bulletin issued by the Bureau of Immigration in
accordance with the committee’s letter request dated September 13, 2021
o Petition to desist the committee from compelling him to disclose information
involving his properties and business interests
o He said that his right to be heard was violated as the questions and treatment of the
committee of him was worse than an accused in a criminal proceeding
o Compelling him to answer questions and submit documents and information that
are beyond the scope of the legislative inquiry is violation his rights to privacy

Senate responded to these petitions, basically asserting the legality of their actions. In relation to
Yang, they sayd that the questions propounded to Yang and the documents required from him are
within the scope of legislative inquiry and in consonance with his right to privacy.

OSG said:

1. There is grave abuse of discretion as the Senate’s power of contempt does not include the
power to order arrest during the conduct of legislative investigation
2. Constitutional right of the resource person must be respected. The senate rules in so far as
they punish as contempt the act of “testifying falsely or evasively” are unconstitutional for
being vague and lacking clear standards
ISSUES:

Ong

1. Whether the senate rules on inquiries is unconstitutional

2. Whether the contempt order should be nullified

Yang

1. Whether the arrest orders and request for issuance of lookout bulletin is without legal bases
2. Whether yang was deprived of right to counsel and right to be heard
3. Whether yang being compelled to answer and submit documents and information are
beyond the scope of legislative inquiry and in violation of his right to privacy

RULING:

In resolving the issues, the court discussed the nature and incidents of the senate’s power to
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation and its contempt power.

The court said:

1. Power of legislature to conduct investigation is broad, and encompasses everything that

concerns the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed
statutes.
2. In Arnault, when the 1935 Constitution was in effect, the court recognized the implied
legislative power to conduct investigations with the necessary process to enforce it. This is
to the end that it may legislate wisely or effectively by being able to compel the availability
of information which will serve as basis for legislation. Thus:

“Although there is no provision in the Constitution expressly investing either House of

Congress with power to make investigations and exact testimony to the end that it may
exercise its legislative functions, such power is so far incidental to the legislative function
as to be implied. In other words, the power of inquiry—with process to enforce it—is an
essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. A legislative body cannot
legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which
the legislations is intended to effect or change; and where the legislative body does not
itself possess the requisite information—which is not infrequently true— recourse must be
had to others who do possess it. Experience has shown that mere requests for such
information are often unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not
always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion is essential to obtain what is
needed. The fact that the Constitution expressly gives to Congress the power to punish its
Members for disorderly behaviour, does not by necessary implication exclude the power to
punish for contempt any other person.”
 3. While the power of legislative investigation was only implicit under the 1935 Constitution,
the 1973 Constitution and the 1987 Constitution are explicit as to the existence of such
power.

Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution 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.

This power was already upheld in numerous cases.

4. Concomitant to the power of the Legislature to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is its
power of contempt impliedly provided under the 1987 Constitution. Unlike the Legislature's
power to make investigations in aid of legislation, there is no provision in the 1987
Constitution expressly granting either the Senate or the House of Representatives with the
authority or process to enforce this power of inquiry. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized
that the Legislature's power of contempt is inherent and arises by implication. This
coercive process is essential to the Legislature's discharge of its functions. This power
permits either House of the Legislature to perform its duties without impediment84 as it
enables the Senate or the House of Representatives to legislate wisely or effectively
because they have the power to compel the availability of information necessary in shaping
legislation.

This power of contempt is anchored on the principle of self-preservation. Since it is vested

with legislative power, it can assert authority and punish contumacious acts against in
independent of the judicial branch. Such power of the Legislature is sui generis as it
"attaches not to the discharge of legislative functions per se but to the character of the
Legislature as one of the three independent and coordinate branches of government."

5. In the same way, power to arrest is concomitant (naturally accompanying) to senate’s

contempt power. While it’s not specified under the Senate Rules of Procedure as the rile
only cite explicit power to detain a witness, court stated that arrest is necessary to carry out
the coercive process of compelling attendance, testimony, and production of documents
relevant and material in a legislative inquiry.

As observed in Arnault: [e]xperience has shown that mere requests for [relevant]
information are often unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not
always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion is essential to obtain what is
needed."8

The Congress is not precluded from causing the appearance of a resource person who is
not before it. As long as the testimony of a resource person is primordial in the Legislature's
inquiry in aid of legislation, then any House of Congress or its committees may compel, by
way of an arrest, his or her appearance in the inquiry proceedings. Necessarily, compelled
 testimony connotes truthful declaration by a resource person subject of the legislative
inquiry.

Indeed, depriving the Senate of this inherent and necessary power to compel a witness to
appear, give a truthful testimony and produce documents before it will amount to a serious
handicap to its Constitutional function to gather information relevant and material to its
legislative inquiries.

6. Exercise of the power of legislative is with limitations namely:

a. Inquiry must be in aid of legislation
b. Inquiry must be conducted in accordance with duly established rules of procedure
c. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected

Also where there is factual basis for contempt, resource person’s detention shall only last until the
termination of the legislative inquiry.

In the case, the SC finds that the first two limitations are satisfied, however, the committee failed to
accord the petitioners their rights relative to conduct of the proceedings.

On the first limitation, the proceeding was conducted to aid in legislation regarding the vaccination
program and procurement of covid19 vaccines, COA findings on unspent and/or misused
government funds and payment claims issues between Philhealth and private hospitals.

On the second limitation, Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution requires that the inquiry be
done in accordance with the duly published rules of procedure of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, necessarily implying the constitutional infirmity of an inquiry conducted without
duly published rules of procedure.

In this case, the Senate Rules on Inquries under Senate Resolution No. 145 on February 18, 2013
was found to be in effect in accordance with the law. It was published in two newspapers of general
circulation and was posted in the senate website. Following the assailed rules, there was a quorum
at the commencement of the hearings and acting throughout. On September 10 when the assailed
contempt order was issued, more that 7 senators were present which was more than 1/3 of all
regular members plus ex officio members as required under Section 4 of the Senatre Rules.

However on the 3rd rule, the committee failed to accord petitioners of their constitutional right to
due rocess relative to the conduct of its proceedings. Specifically, the contempt order dated
September 10, finding Ong and Yang testified falsely and evasively lacks factual basis.It failed to
accord petitioners their rights in the conduct of its proceedings, more in the exercise of its
contempt power. These rights refer to no other than those enshrined under the Bill of Rights, more
particularly to the right to due process and the right against unreasonable seizures. The SC found
such based on the following:

• the Committee ascribed evasiveness to Ong in answering its queries relating to the
following: the agreement between him and/or Pharmally, on the one hand, and Yang, on the
other; and the payment made to the suppliers of PPEs and the nature of the agreement with
said suppliers.
• The Committee observed that Ong confessed that he and/or Pharmally had an agreement with
Yang, but he could not remember the terms thereof. When asked to produce a copy of the
agreement, he said that he would look for it.121
• The Committee also concluded that Ong testified falsely in the course of the hearing of
September 10, 2021, when he stated that Pharmally used its corporate funds to pay its
suppliers before it was able to secure a loan. Sen. Drilon pointed out that Pharmally had no
capacity to pay the initial order from its suppliers in the amount of ₱54 Million considering that
Pharmally only had ₱625,000.00 as paid-up capital at the beginning of the year 2020
• Evidently, the Committee was fixated on the fact that Pharmally had no capacity to pay the
initial order of ₱54 Million, it having a paid-up capital of ₱625,000.00 only at the beginning of
the year 2020. As can be gleaned from his testimony, however, Ong was able to subsequently
aver that they had other funds sourced from the savings of the incorporators, and that they
also borrowed money from friends. He even manifested his willingness to cooperate with the
Anti-Money Laundering Council to explain where his friends got the funds.
• Further, that Ong may have shown hesitancy in giving direct answers as regards the
documents pertaining to the supplies of PPEs does not conclusively establish that he was
evasive. The totality of his responses evince that he was mindful of his right against self-
incrimination. Again, he manifested his willingness to cooperate in the investigation by
committing to produce and submit documents required by the Committee

As regards Yang:

• As keenly observed by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, even inconsistent
answers were equated by the Committee with "testifying evasively."126 As he aptly pointed
out, "[w]hether a witness genuinely did not know or did not recall the answer, or was evasive
in answering a question is largely a matter of judgment or opinion."127 He further pointed
out that "falsely or evasively" should be understood as "false" which means "not genuine,
intentionally untrue, adjusted or made so as to deceive, intended or tending to mislead, not
true, based on mistaken ideas, inconsistent with the facts."128 This determination requires
"an assessment of the totality of the evidence presented to determine whether a witness
speaks truthfully or merely trying to evade answering the question directly."129 Surely, this
determination could not have been made on the basis of his testimony given in the hearing
of September 10, 2021 alone.13
• Evidently, Sen. Lacson's series of repetitive questions as regards Yang's knowledge of
Pharmally evoked different answers. However, the fact that Yang made inconsistent or
incomplete answers in the course of his testimony does not conclusively establish that he
was evasive within the context of contempt, that is, there was refusal or unwillingness to
testify on his part. While Yang initially tried to avoid giving any leading information as regards
his connection with Pharmally, he was able to subsequently aver in the course of the
proceedings that he introduced the suppliers of facemasks and PPEs to Ong. Again, the
Committee immediately surmised on the incredulity of his testimony, thus citing him in
contempt and ordering his arrest on the ground that he gave inconsistent or incomplete
answers.
• Judicial contempt proceedings are characterized as civil or criminal/punitive. Criminal is
punitive in nature, purpose is to prserve power. Civil is to mandate a party to do something.
Legislative contempt is crimila in nature.
• It bears underscoring that the purpose of the Committee's proceedings is to conduct
an inquiry or investigation to aid the Senate in crafting relevant legislation, and not to conduct
a trial or make an adjudication. Legislative inquiries do not share the same goals as the criminal
trial process,137 and "cannot be punitive in the sense that they cannot result in legally binding
deprivation of a person's life, liberty or property."138 Thus, punishment for legislative
contempt, albeit sui generis in character, must similarly observe the minimum requirements of
due process.
• As succinctly pointed out by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, witnesses who are
charged by Congress with "giving false or evasive testimony" must be accorded stricter due
process requirements, such as the opportunity to explain one's side before being penalized,
consistent with the due process safeguards used in criminal proceedings. Considering the
broad definition of "giving false or evasive testimony," the witness must, at the very least, given
a chance to explain why his or her testimony is not false or evasive.139
• In the case, the Committee's grave abuse of discretion lay in its precipitate act of citing
petitioners Ong and Yang in contempt and ordering their arrests without giving them the
opportunity to be heard.

7. Let it be clarified that the Court's finding of grave abuse of discretion in the case—the
Committee's failure to accord petitioners their Constitutional right to due process relative
to the conduct of its proceedings—does not lead to an invalidation of the Legislature's
implicit authority to make a determination whether a person is "testifying falsely or
evasively."

Implicit in the Legislature's power to punish recalcitrant witnesses by declaring them in

contempt is the power to determine whether the witness is recalcitrant or is guilty of
contumacious acts. As the grant of legislative power which includes the power to conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation is intended to be complete—i.e., without need to resort to judicial
process in order that the Legislature may be able to perform its function—it follows that the
Legislature likewise has the power to resort to mechanisms to obey its processes. As in the
case, the Legislature has the power to determine whether a witness is testifying falsely or
evasively and, consequently, declare a witness in contempt with the end that the witness may
be compelled to purge his or her contempt by giving a truthful testimony.

It must be emphasized that the Legislature, considering the statements as well as the
actuations of the witness, is by no means helpless in determining whether a witness is
testifying falsely or evasively. The varying levels of ease or difficulty by which the Legislature
may make such determination on a case-to-case basis does not lead to the conclusion that it
should solely belong to the courts. When a witness' testimony is glaringly false or when his/her
answers are evasive, the Court will not prevent the Legislature from exercising its power just
because the courts may also punish false testimony as a violation of penal laws. If at all, the
Court in certain instances can only consider the Legislature to have ruled whimsically or
arbitrarily if its finding that a witness testified falsely or evasively is evidently without basis. It
does not, however, lead to an invalidation of the Legislature's implicit authority to make such
determination.

SC found that the phrase “testifies falsely or evasively” is not vague as false testimony has
been defined in several provisions of the RPC. It is committed by any person who, being under
oath, and required to testify as to the truth of certain matter at a hearing before a competent
authority, shall deny the truth or say something contrary to it.147
 A false statement is a statement that is known or believed by its maker to be incorrect or
untrue and is made especially with intent to deceive or mislead.148 It is also defined as one
made knowingly false or made recklessly without honest belief in its truth, and within the
purpose to mislead or deceive.149

On the other hand, an evasive answer refers to a response that is given, which does not
directly answer the question posed.150 Evasive answers are often seen in the legal world
when a party refuses to conf rm or deny allegation(s) against him or her.151 An evasive
answer is likewise defined as "one which consists in refusing either to admit or to deny a
matter in a direct, straightforward manner as to which a person is necessarily presumed to
have knowledge."

8. No grave abuse in the lookout bulletin as it is merely a request submitted by the Senate,
subject to the assessment of the relevant agency.
9. No grave abuse in asking Yang to answer questions and submit documents/information
pertaining to him, his property and bisness interest.

It is settled that in the absence of information pertinent to a contemplated legislation, the

Congress will not be able to fully and effectively perform its function to conduct inquiries in aid
of legislation.

In this regard, the Congress makes use of compulsory process to gather material information
for its inquiry but such exercise must be in accordance with its rules of procedure and must
take into account the rights of those affected or appearing during inquiries in aid of legislation.

In the case of Yang, the Court is unconvinced that his right to privacy was violated when the
Senate Committee directed him to produce the subject documents.

In other words, the right to privacy of Yang cannot prevail over the compelling state interest as the
Senate Committee conducts inquiries anent a contemplated legislation relating to RA No. 11494.
The purpose of the inquiry of the Senate to resolve the misuse of government funds in connection
with the pandemic response of the government is a compelling state reason for it to proceed with
its inquiry and require Yang to produce the subject documents.

Second, pieces of information which relate to personal circumstances are not by themselves
beyond the scope of legislative inquiry especially so where, as above stated, a contemplated
legislation is being considered by the Congress. Verily, in the absence of showing that the
production of the subject documents will in any way prejudice Yang, his contention that his right to
privacy was violated remains as a bare allegation without proof supporting the claim.

Third, Yang failed to convince the Court of any recognized public interest in the confidentiality of the
information asked by the Senate Committee. In fact, he did not assail at the outset and before the
Senate the obligatory force of the subpoena duces tecum it issued against him. In contrast, Yang
himself admitted having complied with the subpoena and brought the subject documents when he
appeared before the Senate Committee. In the absence of a formal and proper invocation by Yang
of his right to privacy before the Senate, stating the specific reasons for the preservation of the
confidentiality of the information being asked from him as a resource person, no grave abuse of
discretion can be imputed against the Senate in directing him to produce the subject
documents.164
Wherefore, assailed contempt order is nullified.

Bengzon