GR 180564; (June, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180564 ; June 22, 2010
JESUS P. DISINI, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, as represented by the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), Respondents.
FACTS
In 1989, the Republic, through the PCGG, entered into an Immunity Agreement with petitioner Jesus P. Disini to secure his testimony and cooperation in two specific foreign cases against Westinghouse concerning the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. The Agreement explicitly stipulated that the Republic would not compel Disini to testify in any other domestic or foreign proceeding brought by the Republic against his cousin, Herminio T. Disini. Disini faithfully complied with his obligations under the Agreement.
Eighteen years later, in 2007, the Republic applied for and the Sandiganbayan issued subpoenas commanding Disini to testify and produce documents in a separate ill-gotten wealth case it had filed against Herminio. Disini moved to quash the subpoena, invoking the Immunity Agreement. The PCGG then issued a resolution unilaterally revoking the Agreement insofar as it prohibited compelling his testimony against Herminio. The Sandiganbayan subsequently denied Disini’s motion to quash.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Disini’s motion to quash the subpoena, despite the existing Immunity Agreement.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and nullified the Sandiganbayan’s orders. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that the State must honor its contractual obligations. The Immunity Agreement is a valid contract, and its terms are clear: the Republic bound itself not to compel Disini to testify in any other proceeding against Herminio. The Court rejected the Republic’s argument that the PCGG’s power to grant immunity is limited to immunity from suit and does not extend to testimonial immunity. The Agreement’s plain language includes a guarantee against being compelled to testify, which is a logical and permissible component of the broader immunity power granted to the PCGG to secure vital testimony for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth.
The PCGG’s unilateral revocation of the Agreement was invalid. Contracts bind both parties, and the State cannot simply renege on its solemn commitments. To allow the Republic to revoke the agreement after Disini had fully performed his part would be a violation of fundamental fairness and would severely damage the government’s credibility in securing future cooperation from witnesses. The Sandiganbayan’s denial of the motion to quash, which disregarded this binding contract, constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the State, when it enters into contracts, must abide by them in good faith.