CONSTI LAW 1 : IV.
Legislative Department
08/31/2023
CASE DIGEST
Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate Committee on Banks
5
G.R. No. 167173 (2007)
FACTS:
Senator Enrile delivered a privilege speech denouncing SCB-Philippines for selling unregistered foreign securities in
violation of the Securities Regulation Code (RA 8799) and urging the Senate to immediately conduct an inquiry, in
aid of legislation, to prevent the occurrence of a similar fraudulent activity in the future. Upon motion of Senator
Pangilinan, the speech was referred to respondent, which through its Chairperson Senator Angara, set an initial
hearing and invited petitioners herein to attend the hearing. Petitioners via letter stressed that there were pending
cases in court allegedly involving the same issues subject of the legislative inquiry, thereby posing a challenge to the
jurisdiction of respondent committee to proceed with the inquiry.
Legislative investigation commenced but with the invited resource persons not being all present, Senator Enrile
moved for the issuance of subpoena and an HDO or to include such absentees to the Bureau of Immigrations’ Watch
List. During the hearing, it was apparent that petitioners lack proper authorizations to make disclosures and lack the
copies of the accusing documents being mentioned by Senator Enrile. Thus, when hearing adjourned, petitioners
were later served with subpoenas by respondent.
Petitioner now seeks that respondent committee be enjoined from proceeding, citing Bengzon Jr. v. Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee, claiming that since the issue is already preempted by the courts, the legislative investigation is
an encroachment upon the judicial powers vested solely in the courts.
ISSUE: Whether the investigation in aid of legislation by respondent committee encroaches upon the judicial power
of the courts
Ruling: NO.
The unmistakable objective of the investigation, as set forth in the said resolution, exposes the error in petitioners’
allegation that the inquiry, as initiated in a privilege speech by the very same Senator Enrile, was simply “to
denounce the illegal practice committed by a foreign bank in selling unregistered foreign securities x x x.” This fallacy
is made more glaring when we consider that, at the conclusion of his privilege speech, Senator Enrile urged the
Senate “to immediately conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation, so as to prevent the occurrence of a similar
fraudulent activity in the future.”
Indeed, the mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before a court or a quasi-judicial body should
not automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation. Otherwise, it would be extremely easy to subvert any
intended inquiry by Congress through the convenient ploy of instituting a criminal or an administrative complaint.
Surely, the exercise of sovereign legislative authority, of which the power of legislative inquiry is an essential
component, cannot be made subordinate to a criminal or an administrative investigation.
Neither can the petitioners claim that they were singled out by the respondent Committee. The Court notes that
among those invited as resource persons were officials of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). These officials were subjected to the same critical scrutiny by the respondent
relative to their separate findings on the illegal sale of unregistered foreign securities by SCB-Philippines. It is
obvious that the objective of the investigation was the quest for remedies, in terms of legislation, to prevent the
recurrence of the allegedly fraudulent activity.
Wherefore, the petition for prohibition is DENIED for lack of merit.
1
Reference:http://karissafaye.blogspot.com/2009/06/senate-vs-ermita-gr-169777-april-20.html
