G.R. No. 153051; October 18, 2007
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Fifth Division), LUCIO TAN, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed a petition for certiorari assailing two Sandiganbayan Resolutions. The Resolutions denied the PCGG’s motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum issued to its Records Officer, Lourdes Magno. The subpoena required her to produce the evidence and minutes of meetings upon which the PCGG based its 1986 Sequestration Order and Writ against the shares and assets of respondents Lucio Tan and various corporations. Respondents sought these documents to determine the validity of the sequestration in the main case.
The PCGG opposed the motion for production, initially claiming the document descriptions were vague. After the Sandiganbayan granted the motion, the PCGG made some documents available but respondents insisted on compliance via a court subpoena. The PCGG then moved to quash, primarily invoking Section 4(b) of Executive Order No. 1, which states that no PCGG member or staff shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any proceeding concerning matters within its official cognizance. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the subpoena to the PCGG’s Records Officer despite the immunity provision in Section 4(b) of Executive Order No. 1.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that Section 4(b) of Executive Order No. 1 could not shield PCGG personnel from a valid subpoena. This provision was effectively repealed by the 1987 Constitution for being inconsistent with its fundamental principles. Specifically, the Court cited Article VI, Section 21 (Congress’s power of inquiry), Article XI, Section 1 (public accountability), Article II, Section 28 (full public disclosure), and Article III, Section 7 (right to information).
The constitutional mandate under Article VIII, Section 3 renders all prior issuances inconsistent with the Constitution inoperative. The Court emphasized it would be constitutionally offensive to allow the PCGG or its staff to be exempt from judicial processes, such as a Sandiganbayan subpoena. Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the PCGG’s ancillary claim that the subpoena was unreasonable or oppressive, noting the requested documents were properly identified and material to the case. Thus, the Sandiganbayan acted within its jurisdiction.