or subject him to a penalty or fo몭eiture: but his testimony or any
evidence produced by him shall not be used against him in criminal
prosecution based on the transaction, ma몭er or thing concerning
which is compelled, a몭er invoking his privilege against self-
incrimination to testify or produce evidence. Provided, however, that
such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution
and punishment for perjury commi몭ed in so testifying nor shall he be
exempt from demotion or removal from o몭ce. Any employee who
to testify or produce any documents under this Act shall be dismissed
from the service."
Suppose fu몭her, that Ong, a member of the Professional Regulatory
Board, is required to answer questions in an investigation regarding
a LEAKAGE in a medical examination.
1. Can Ong refuse to answer questions on the ground that he would
2. Suppose he refuses to answer, and for that reason, is dismissed
from the service; can he pausibly argue that the Civil Commission has
inferred his guilt from his refusal to answer in violation of the
3. Suppose on the other hand, he answers the question and on the
basis of his answers, he is found guilty and is dismissed. Can he
pausibly asse몭 that his dismissa1 is based on coerced confession?
1. No. Ong cannot refuse to answer the question on the ground that he
would incriminate himself, since the Jaw grants him immunity and
prohibits the use against him in a criminal prosecution of the
testimony or evidence produced by him. As stated by the United
Supreme Cou몭 in Brown vs. Walker, 161 U.S.591, 597, what the
constitutional prohibition against self-incrimination seeks to
prevent is the conviction of the witness on the basis of testimony
elicited from him. The rule is satis몭ed when he is granted immunity.