SYLLABUS TITLE: LEGISLATIVE CONTEMPT
CASE TITLE: ARVIN BALAG vs. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS:
On September 17, 2017, Horacio Tomas T. Castillo III, a first year law student of the University of
Sto. Tomas (UST), died allegedly due to hazing conducted by the Aegis Juris Fraternity of the
same university.
Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri directed the appropriate Senate Committee to conduct an
investigation, in aid of legislation, to hold those responsible accountable.
A Resolution Directing the Appropriate Senate Committees to Conduct An Inquiry, In Aid of
Legislation, into the Recent Death of Horacio Tomas Castillo III Allegedly Due to Hazing-Related
Activities" was filed by Senator Paolo Benigno Aquino IV.
On the same day, the Senate Committee on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs chaired by
Senator Panfilo Lacson together with the Committees on Justice and Human Rights and
Constitutional Amendment and Revision of Codes, invited Balag and several other persons to
the Joint Public Hearing.
Balag did not attend the hearing. John Paul Solano, a member of AJ Fraternity, Atty. Nilo T.
Divina, Dean of UST Institute of Civil Law and Arthur Capili, UST Faculty Secretary, attended the
hearing and were questioned by the senate committee members.
Parents of Horacio III, filed a Criminal Complaint for Murder and violation of Section 4 of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8049, before the Department of Justice against several members of the
AJ Fraternity, including petitioner.
Senator Lacson issued a subpoena addressed to petitioner directing him to appear before the
committee and to testify as to the subject matter under inquiry. Another subpoena was issued
requiring him to attend the legislative hearing on October 18, 2017.
Petitioner attended the senate hearing. In the course of the proceedings, at around 11:29 in the
morning, Senator Grace Poe asked Balag if he was the president of AJ Fraternity but he refused
to answer the question and invoked his right against self-incrimination. Senator Poe repeated
the question but he still refused to answer. Senator Lacson reminded him to answer the
question because it was a very simple question, otherwise, he could be cited in contempt.
Senator Poe retorted that petitioner might still be clinging to the supposed "Code of Silence" in
his alleged text messages to his fraternity. She manifested that petitioner's signature appeared
on the application for recognition of the AJ Fraternity and on the organizational sheet, indicating
that he was the president. Petitioner, again, invoked his right against self-incrimination. Senator
Poe then moved to cite him in contempt, which was seconded by Senators Joel Villanueva and
Zubiri. Senator Lacson ruled that the motion was properly seconded, hence, the Senate
Sergeant-at-arms was ordered to place petitioner in detention after the committee hearing.
Allegedly, Senator Lacson threatened to order the detention of petitioner in Pasay City Jail
under the custody of the Senate Sergeant-at-arms and told him not to be evasive because he
would be merely affirming school records.
Around 12:09 in the afternoon, Senators Lacson and Poe gave petitioner another chance to
purge himself of the contempt charge. Again, he was asked the same question twice and each
time he refused to answer.
Senator Villanueva inquired from petitioner whether he knew whose decision it was to bring
Horacio III to the Chinese General Hospital instead of the UST Hospital. Petitioner apologized for
his earlier statement and moved for the lifting of his contempt. He admitted that he was a
member of the AJ Fraternity but he was not aware as to who its president was because, at that
time, he was enrolled in another school.
Senator Villanueva repeated his question to petitioner but the latter, again, invoked his right
against self-incrimination. Petitioner reiterated his plea that the contempt order be lifted
because he had already answered the question regarding his membership in the AJ Fraternity.
Senator Villanueva replied that petitioner's contempt would remain. Senator Lacson added that
he had numerous opportunities to answer the questions of the committee but he refused to do
so. Thus, petitioner was placed under the custody of the Senate Sergeant-at-arms.
ARGUMENTS:
PETITIONER (BALAG) DEFENDANT (SENATE)
Petitioner chiefly argues that the legislative The statement of the senators during the hearing
inquiry conducted by respondent committees demonstrated that the legislative inquiry was
was not in aid of legislation; rather, it was in aid conducted in aid of legislation; and that the
of prosecution. He posits that the purpose of SR Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in
No. 504 was to hold accountable those Aid of Legislation (Senate Rules) were duly
responsible for the senseless act of killing Horacio published.
III, and not to aid legislation.
He insists that the senate hearings would violate Petitioner was unresponsive. According to
his right to due process and would pre-empt the respondents, these acts were contemptuous and
findings of the DOJ with respect to the criminal were valid reasons to cite petitioner in contempt.
complaint filed against him. They emphasized that the Senate respected
petitioner's right to due process because the
hearing was conducted in aid of legislation
Petitioner also asserts that he properly invoked The question propounded to petitioner was not
his right against self incrimination as the incriminating because an admission that he was
questions propounded by Senator Poe regarding an officer of the AJ Fraternity would not
the officers, particularly the presidency of the AJ automatically make him liable under R.A. No.
Fraternity, were incriminating because the 8049.
answer thereto involves an element of the crime
of hazing. Despite the questions being
incriminating, he, nonetheless, answered them
by admitting that he was a member of the AJ
Fraternity but he did not know of its current
president because he transferred to another
school.
He adds that his right to equal protection of laws She delivered her privilege speech as a prelude to
was violated because the other resource persons crafting remedial legislation of JBC.
who refused to answer the questions of the
Senate committees were not cited in contempt.
He contends that respondents did not exercise
their power of contempt judiciously and with
restraint.
SUPREME COURT
The period of detention under the Senate’s inherent power of contempt is not indefinite. The Court
finds that the period of imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt by the Senate during
inquiries in aid of legislation should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry under
which the said power is invoked. The Court finds that there is a genuine necessity to place a limitation
on the period of imprisonment that may be imposed by the Senate pursuant to its inherent power of
contempt during inquiries in aid of legislation.
ISSUE:
DID THE SENATE COMMITTEES ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN CITING PETITIONER IN
CONTEMPT?
RULING:
No, the Senate committees did not act with grave abuse of discretion in citing the petitioner’s
contempt.
Although, the Court finds that there is a genuine necessity to place a limitation on the period of
imprisonment that may be imposed by the Senate pursuant to its inherent power of contempt during
inquiries in aid of legislation pursuant to Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution which states that
Congress, in conducting inquiries in aid of legislation, must respect the rights of persons appearing in or
affected therein.
The contempt order issued against petitioner simply stated that he would be arrested and detained until
such time that he gives his true testimony, or otherwise purges himself of the contempt. It does not
provide any definite and concrete period of detention. Neither does the Senate Rules specify a precise
period of detention when a person is cited in contempt.
The Court finds that the period of imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt by the Senate
during inquiries in aid of legislation should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry under
which the said power is invoked.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the decision of the Supreme Court that the petition of Arvin Balag be
dismissed for being moot and academic.
