{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

R no 157013 jul 10 2003 separate opinionofjusticepuno

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: on must be in aid of legislation. 4. Congress may not summon the President as witness or investigate the latter in view of the doctrine of separation of powers except in impeachment cases. Note: It is the President’s prerogative to divulge or not the information which he deems confidential or prudent in the public interest. 5. Congress may no longer punish the witness in contempt after its final adjournment. The basis of the power to impose such penalty is the right to self‐ preservation. And such right is enforceable only during the existence of 34 6. the legislature (Lopez v. Delos Reyes G.R. No. L‐3436,1 Nov. 5, 1930). Congress may no longer inquire into the same justiciable controversy already before the court (Bengzon v. Blue Ribbon Committee, G.R. No. 89914, Nov. 20, 1991) Q: Senator Enrile accused the Vice Chairman of the Standard Chartered Bank of violating the Securities Regulation Code for selling unregistered foreign securities. This has led the Senate to conduct investigation in aid of legislation. SCB refused to attend the investigation proceedings on the ground that criminal and civil cases involving the same issues were pending in courts. Decide. A: The mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before a court or a quasi‐judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation. Otherwise, it would be extremely easy to subvert any intended inquiry by Congress through the convenient ploy of instituting a criminal or an administrative complaint. Surely, the exercise of sovereign legislative authority, of which the power of legislative inquiry is an essential component, can not be made subordinate to a criminal or an administrative investigation. (Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate, G.R. No. 167173, Dec. 27, 2007) Q: Distinguish the above‐mentioned case from the case of Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. A: It is true that in Bengzon, the Court declared that the issue to be investigated was one over which jurisdiction had already been acquired by the Sandiganbayan, and to allow the [Senate Blue Ribbon] Committee to investigate the matter...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online