8/13/2019 Benzon vs. SBRC

1/2

Title: Jose F.S. BENZON vs. Senate Blue Ribbon

Committee

Date of Promulgation:20 November 1991

Nature: Petition for prohibition to review the

decision of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

Ponente:Padilla, J.

Facts:

A petition for prohibition with prayer forissuance of Temporary Restraining Orderand/or injunctive relief to enjoin

respondent (Senate Blue Ribbon

Committee) from requiring petitioners to

testify and produce evidence at its

inquiry into the alleged sale of equity of

Benjamin Kokoy Romualdez to the

Lopa Group in 36/39 corporations

30 July 1987: PCGG vs. Romualdez [CivilCase 35] for reconveyance, reversion,

accounting, restitution, and damages.

Case involves Benjamin KokoyRomualdez and Juliette Romualdez,acting by themselves and/or in unlawful

concert with the Marcoses, engaged in

devices and schemes to unjustly enrich

themselves at the expense of plaintiff

and Filipino peoplea. [acquire assets without minimal cash-outs]

obtained control of some of biggest business

enterprise in the Philippines such as MERALCO,

BENGUET (Mining company), Pilipinas Shell

Corporation, and PCI Bank by employing

devious financial schemes and techniques

calculated to require massive infusion and

hemorrhage of government funds with

minimum/negligible cash-out from BenjaminRomualdez.

b. [tactic to get more capital] manipulated theformation of Erectors Holdings, Inc. without

infusing additional capital with insufficient

securities/ collateral to make Erectors Inc.

appear viable and to borrow more capital

c. [concealment of ill-gotten wealth]At onset ofAquino government, manipulated and

schemed intended to conceal and place, forthe purpose of concealing and placing

beyond inquiry and jurisdiction of PCGG

defendants individual and collective funds,

properties and assets subject of and/or suited

in complaint.

d. [fake divestments to fool PCGG]maneuveredpurported sale of Romualdez interests invarious companies (36/39 companies) for 5M,3 days after formation of PCGG. This is for sole

purpose of deceiving and pre-empting Govt.

particularly PCGG and making it appear thatBenjamin Romualdez had already divested

himself of ownership of aforementioned

companies. In fact, his interest are intact and

being protected by Atty. Bengzon. To further

entice PCGG to fictitious sale, defendants

offered 20M as donation to Govt.

e. [Invest 25M to PCI Bank, shares>30% @ 36.8%,dismantle/cancellation of funds]Misused 25M

by causing it to be invested in PCI Bank and

through Banks TSG to unlawfuldismantling/cancelation of funds, 10 M shares

for allegedly exceeding 30% ceiling

prescribed by Sec. 12-B of General BankingAct (due to investment shares increased to

11,470,555 voting shares/ 36.8%)

f. [hid behind veil of corporate entity of ill-gottenwealth] Cleverly hid behind veil of corporate

entity the ill-gotten wealth of Benjamin

Romualdez including the 6,229,177 shares of

PCI Bank registered in names of Trans Middle

East Philippines Equities Inc. refused to

surrender to PCGG despite disclosure as they

tried and continue to exert efforts in gettinghold of shares of sever companies. All theseowned by Benjamin Romualdez.

13 September 1988: Senator Enriledelivered a privilege speech re: take-

over of SOLOIL Inc. flagship of First

Manila Management Companies(FMMC) by Ricardo Lopa called

upon Senate to look into possible

violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and

Corrupt Practices Act)

Senate Blue Ribbon Committee startedinvestigation after motion of Sen.

Orlando Mercado Petitioners and Ricardo Lopa

subpoenaed re: knowledge re sale of 36

(or 39) corporations belonging to

Benjamin Romualdez Ricardo Lopa

declined to testify on ground his

testimony may unjuly prejudice

defendants on Civil Case #35 (which are

petitioners in this case). Benzon refused

to testify invoking his right to due process

Senate BRC (Blue Ribbon Committee)

suspended inquiry and directed

petitioner to file memorandum onconstitutional issues raised.

Assail jurisdictional question SBRCrequiring attendance and testimony in

excess of jurisdiction and legislative

purpose

Issues: (1) WON Court has jurisdiction over issues

raised by petitioners

(2) WON Senate BRCs inquiry has no valid

legislative purpose

(3) WON the sale or disposition of the

Romualdez corporations is a purely private

transaction which is beyond the power of theSBRC to inquire into

(4) WON the inquiry violates the right to due

process of the petitioners

Held:(1) YES. Court has jurisdiction over present

controversy for the purpose of determining the

scope and extent of the power of SBRC to

conduct inquiries into private affairs in

purported aid of legislation

(2) YES. SBRC was only to find our WON relative

of Pres. Aquino, Mr. Ricardo Lopa, had violated

the law in alleged sale of Romualdezcorporations to Lopa Group thereby possibly

8/13/2019 Benzon vs. SBRC

2/2

violating RA 3019 Sec. 5 (Anti-Graft & Corrupt

Practices Act; Prohibition on certain relatives)

Enriles speech contained no suggestion of

contemplated legislation; he merely called

upon the Senate to look into aforementioned

violation questioned inquiry is NOT IN AID OF

LEGISLATION and if pursued would violate

principle of separation od powers between

legislative and judicial departments.(3) YES. Case at hand concerns merely private

matter which does not further any legitimate

task of Congress OR without justification in terms

of the functions of Congress. There are limits to

power to probe and inquire by Congress.

(4) YES. Sec. 21, Art VI allows for inquiries in aid

of legislation wherein rights of individuals shall

be respected. Right against self-incrimination:

Petitioners may not be compelled by

respondents SBRC to appear, testify and

produce evidence before it because

questioned inquiry is not in aid of legislation.

Ratio: (1) SEPARATION OF POWERS: Constitution

allotted powers to the three branches of

government. However, judicial department is

the ONLY one who can determine the proper

allocation of powers; JUDICIAL SUPREMACY:

power of judicial review (limited to actual cases

and controversies to be exercised after full

opportunity of argument by parties limited to

questions raised/ lis motapresented)

(2) Art VI, Sec. 21: power of both houses of

Congress to conduct inquiries in aid oflegislation not absolute or unlimited, must

satisfy 2 conditions: (1)in aid of legislation in

accordance with its duly published rules of

procedure; (2)rights of persons appearing

in/affected by such inquiries shall be respected

(subject to rights under Art. III/ Bill of Rights such

as right to due process/ right against self-

incrimination)

Inquiries are within the jurisdiction of

legislative body when they are material or

necessary to the exercise of a power in it vested

by Constitution such as to legislate or to expel amember.

not in aid of legislation: (a) Enrile did not

indict PCGG and (b) neither Lopa nor

petitioners are connected with the government

= PRIVATE CITIZENS

(3) there is no general authority to expose

private affairs of individuals without justification

in terms of functions of Congress. Nor is

Congress a law enforcement/ trial agency. No

inquiry is an end itself; it must be related to and

in furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress

Investigations conducted solely for personal

aggrandizement of investigators or to punish

those investigated are indefensible.

Civil Case to begin with = jurisdiction of Court

(4) Right of accused = may altogether refuse to

take witness stand and refuse to answer any

and all questions extended to administrative

investigations not limited to criminal cases; not

character of suit involved but NATURE of

PROCEEDINGS that controls.

RULING: Granted. SBRC enjoined fromcompelling petitioners and intervenors to testify

before it and produce evidence at said inquiry.