G.R. No. 257401 , March 28, 2023.
LINCONN UY ONG, PETITIONER, VS. THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATIONS (BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE); HON. SENATOR RICHARD J. GORDON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE; HON. SENATOR VICENTE C. SOTTO III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENATE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES; MGEN RENE C. SAMONTE AFP (RET.), IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENATE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS, RESPONDENTS. G.R. No. 257916 MICHAEL YANG HONG MING, PETITIONER, VS. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATIONS, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners Linconn Uy Ong and Michael Yang Hong Ming were invited as resource speakers by the Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Committee) in its legislative inquiry regarding Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corporation’s transactions with the government. After initially failing to attend, the Committee issued a Contempt Order dated September 7, 2021, citing them in contempt and ordering their arrest and detention. Ong later voluntarily attended a hearing on September 10, 2021. During his examination, the Committee issued a second Contempt Order dated September 10, 2021, citing him in contempt and ordering his arrest for “testifying falsely and evasively.” He was later arrested and detained. Yang also appeared on September 10, 2021, and was similarly cited for contempt and arrested for allegedly giving evasive answers. Ong and Yang filed petitions assailing the validity of the contempt orders and the pertinent Senate rules, particularly Section 18 of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation and Sec. 6, Article 6 of the Rules of the Committee, which allow punishment for contempt for a witness who “testifies falsely or evasively.” The Office of the Solicitor General intervened, arguing the assailed rules were unconstitutional for being vague and that the power of contempt does not include the power to order arrest during a legislative investigation.

ISSUE

1. Whether the assailed Senate rules, which allow a witness who “testifies falsely or evasively” to be cited in contempt, are constitutional.
2. Whether the assailed orders that directed the arrest of Ong and Yang are valid.

RULING

1. The phrase “testifies falsely or evasively” in the Senate rules is NOT unconstitutional and is not vague. The power of legislative contempt is an inherent and necessary auxiliary power of Congress to carry out its legislative function, including the power of inquiry. The phrase provides a sufficient standard, as “falsely” pertains to statements contrary to or inconsistent with the truth, and “evasively” pertains to answers that are not straightforward or are meant to avoid giving a direct response.
2. The arrest orders were issued with GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION and are NULL and VOID for failing to accord Ong and Yang their constitutional right to due process. The Committee did not sufficiently observe due process in issuing the contempt citations for allegedly testifying falsely or evasively. The power to arrest is concomitant to the power of legislative contempt, but its exercise must be cautious, sparing, and judicious. While the petitions were rendered moot by Ong’s release and the termination of the inquiry, the Court decided the case based on exceptions to the mootness doctrine.