The Supreme Court (SC) has declared that persons cited by the Senate in contempt during legislative inquiries could only be imprisoned “until the termination” of the probe.
The SC laid down this precedent in the case of Aegis Juris fraternity leader Arvin Balag, who had questioned his detention during the Senate’s inquiry into the Horacio Castillo III hazing case.
In the recent 21-page en banc decision, the SC reckoned the issuance of a committee report on the legislative inquiry as the point where it would be deemed terminated and the detainees “should be released.”
Prior to Balag’s case, previous SC rulings allowed the indefinite imprisonment of persons cited in contempt—they could even spend life behind bars in theory.
This was because the Senate is a continuing body (half of the members are replaced alternately every election cycle), unlike the House of Representatives that adjourns every three years.
Balag’s case made the SC find a “genuine necessity to place a limitation” on such penalties.
The SC said it found the need to “strike a balance between the interest of the Senate and the rights of persons cited in contempt during legislative inquiries.”
It noted that the Senate could exercise its power to cite persons in contempt “as long as there is a legitimate legislative inquiry,” since the purpose is to ensure respect and cooperation for such proceedings.
“Once the said legislative inquiry concludes, the exercise of the inherent power of contempt ceases and there is no more genuine necessity to penalize the detained witness,” read the decision penned by Associate Justice Alexander Gesmundo.
While the 1950 Arnault ruling raised the fears that the Senate would be denied the power to ensure orderly proceedings if the detention period was limited, the SC now said such concerns were “insufficient.”
The SC pointed out that persons who act in contempt of Congress could still be charged for the crime of “disobedience to summons” under Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code and tried before the courts.
(Senator Leila de Lima is currently facing such a case for allegedly discouraging her driver Ronnie Dayan from attending the House of Representatives’ investigation against her in 2016.)
At the same time, the SC said Balag’s petition seeking its intervention in his detention by the Senate was already “moot and academic.”
This was because the SC already ordered Balag’s release from detention way back on December 12, 2017.
At the same time, the Senate public order and justice committees already terminated their legislative inquiries on January 23, 2018 and the Senate even passed on February 12, 2018 its version of what was now Republic Act Number 11053.
The inquiry looked into the September 12, 2017 death of Castillo, a law freshman of the University of Santo Tomas (UST), during the Aegis Juris fraternity initiation rites.
Source: this post from abogado.com.ph
MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) has approved a mechanism that will bar individuals facing a complaint in major crimes from leaving the country.
Voting 11-1, the SC en banc on Tuesday, August 7, introduced the Precautionary Hold Departure Order (PHDO).
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen was the lone dissent.
What is a PHDO? In the current system, a Hold Departure Order (HDO) can be issued only by courts after the person has formally been charged there.
The PHDO will allow prosecutors to prevent the subject of a complaint from fleeing the country even before the formal filing of charges.
A PHDO applies only to cases “involving crimes where the minimum penalty prescribed by law is at least six years and one day.”
Like the usual HDO, the PHDO also has to be issued by the court whose jurisdiction covers the place where the crime was committed. If the specifics are unknown, the issuing court can be anywhere from within the judicial region where the crime was committed.
“The judge in a PHDO application must also determine that there is a high probability that the subject will depart from the Philippines to evade arrest and prosecution of crime against him or her,” SC Spokesman Theodore Te explained in a news conference on Tuesday.
Te added: “The preliminary finding of probable cause is solely based on the complaint and is for the sole purpose of issuing the PHDO and shall be without prejudice to the resolution by the prosecutor of any criminal complaint during the preliminary investigation.”
The PHDO is valid until the court lifts it.
Like a warrant of arrest for bailable offenses, the person can pay a bond and apply for the PHDO to be lifted.
Why the need for a PHDO? The PHDO was triggered by the legal controversy from 2011 when former justice secretary Leila de Lima issued an HDO against former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
The SC stopped the HDO, but De Lima succeeded in preventing Arroyo from leaving the country in an airport ruckus that made headlines then.
Seven years later, in April 2018, the SC voided De Lima’s HDO against Arroyo, saying that it violated her constitutional right to travel.
De Lima’s legal basis then was Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 41 signed by former justice secretary Alberto Agra, which empowered justice secretaries to issue HDOs and Watchlist Orders.
The SC declared the circular unconstitutional.
What the DOJ does now is issue an Immigration Lookout Bulletin Order (ILBO) which alerts immigration authorities about the movement of certain personalities, but does not prevent them from leaving the country.
The PHDO will bridge that gap.
Source: this post from Rappler.com
Oh My Kwento!!!! 