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

The case involves petitioners Linconn Uy Ong and Michael Yang Hong Ming who were cited for contempt, ordered arrested, and detained by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. The Order dated September 10, 2021, was issued by the Committee Chairperson with the concurrence of at least one member, pursuant to Section 6, Article 6 of the Rules of the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Blue Ribbon), for allegedly testifying falsely or evasively during an inquiry in aid of legislation.

ISSUE

1. Whether the phrase “testifies falsely or evasively” as a ground for contempt is unconstitutionally vague.
2. Whether the Senate’s inherent power to cite and punish for contempt in inquiries in aid of legislation is valid.
3. Whether the procedure under Section 6, Article 6 of the Blue Ribbon Committee Rules, allowing the Chairperson with the concurrence of one member to cite for contempt without a hearing, is constitutional.

RULING

Justice Lazaro-Javier, in her Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, ruled as follows:
1. The phrase “testifies falsely or evasively” is NOT vague. To testify “evasively” means to respond to questions obliquely without giving straight answers or with answers that change over time, which a person of ordinary reason would understand. To testify “falsely” means the testimony is not in accordance with fact or truth, a concept well-established in law, such as in the Revised Penal Code articles on falsities.
2. The Senate or its Committees possess the inherent power to cite and punish for contempt during inquiries in aid of legislation, as settled in Balag v. Senate. This power is essential to make legislative inquiries potent and compelling, arising from the right of self-preservation, and is not ultra vires regardless of its punitive impact.
3. However, the procedure for exercising this contempt power under Section 6, Article 6 of the Blue Ribbon Committee Rules (and similarly under Section 18 of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation) is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It violates procedural due process by allowing the Committee Chairperson, with the concurrence of only one member, to unilaterally cite and punish a resource person for contempt—specifically for testifying falsely or evasively—without affording the person a hearing. The determination of falsity or evasiveness is highly contextual and requires a fair procedure where the resource person can be heard, either through a trial-type hearing or written submissions, before being condemned. The complete absence of such a procedure renders the rule void.
Thus, Justice Lazaro-Javier concurred in nullifying the September 10, 2021 Order but dissented from finding the cited rule constitutional.