With the daily broadcast of the “inquiry in aid of legislation” conducted by the House of Representatives and the Senate, it has become the subject of conversations, discussions, and debates among the citizenry.
The power of a legislative inquiry is expressly recognized in Sec. 21 of Article VI of the Constitution: The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
The matters which may be a proper subject of legislation, and those which may be a proper subject of investigation are one, since Congress has authority to inquire into the operations of executive officials who are most familiar with, and informed on executive operations, like Customs Commissioner Nicolas Faeldon.
To date, Faeldon has refused to face the Senate inquiry on the alleged corruption in the release of a P6.4 billion shabu shipment.
In the case of Arnault vs. Nazareno, Petitioner argued that the Senate lacks authority to commit him for contempt for a term beyond its period of legislative session. According to the Supreme Court: “That investigation has not been completed because of the refusal of the petitioner as a witness to answer certain questions pertinent to the subject of the inquiry. The Senate has empowered the committee to continue the investigation during the recess. By refusing to answer the questions, the witness has obstructed the performance by the Senate of its legislative function, and the Senate has the power to remove the obstruction by compelling the witness to answer the questions through restraint of his liberty until he shall have answered them. That power subsists as long as the Senate, which is a continuing body, persists in performing the particular legislative function involved. To hold that it may punish the witness for contempt only during the session in which investigation was begun, would be to recognize the right of the Senate to perform its function but at the same time, to deny to it an essential and appropriate means for its performance. Aside from this, if we should hold that the power to punish for contempt terminates upon the adjournment of the session, the Senate would have to resume the investigation at the next and succeeding sessions, and repeat the contempt proceedings against the witness until the investigation is completed — an absurd, unnecessary, and vexatious procedure, which should be avoided. xxxx Where public interests outweigh private concerns, a congressional witness may not resist inquiry into pertinent subject matter of which the witness is apprised.”
Thus, a person held in contempt by the Senate can be held indefinitely.
_________________________________
Author’s email: [email protected]