ChanRobles Virtual law Library

EN BANC

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 11 2005.

G.R. No. 169638 ( Norberto B. Gonzales vs. Joker P. Arroyo in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Blue Ribbon) and Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate of the Philippines. )

The Court NOTED the

(a) Comment on the petition for habeas corpus dated 10 October 2005 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, in compliance with the resolution of 04 October 2005;

(b) Comment dated 10 October 2005 on the petition for habeas corpus filed by Senate Legal Counsel David Jonathan V. Yap and Director General Emilia A. Pueyo, MNSA, Senate Blue Ribbon Oversight Office Management (BROOM) for respondents Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Blue Ribbon) and the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate;

(c) Compliance dated 10 October 2005 with the resolution of October 4, 2005 filed by Director General Emilia A, Pueyo. MNSA, Senate Blue Ribbon Oversight Office Management (BROOM), Senate of the Philippines, submitting transcript of stenographic notes of the proceedings related to the testimony of herein petitioner Norberto B. Gonzales; and

(d) Appearance dated 10 October 2005 filed by Senate Legal Counsel David Jonathan V. Yap entering the appearance of Sen. Joker P. Arroyo to represent the respondents in the oral argument of this case on October 11, 2005 per Senate Resolution No. 45 adopted on October 10, 2005.

At the hearing of this case this afternoon, Atty. Antonio R. Bautista appeared and argued for petitioner Norberto Gonzales. Senator Joker Arroyo, Senate Legal Counsel David Jonathan V. Yap and Director General Emilia A. Pueyo appeared for respondents with Senator Arroyo arguing. Prom the Office of the Solicitor General, Solicitor General Alfredo L. Benipayo, Assistant Solicitor General John Emmanuel F. Madamba, Associate Solicitors Shiela Marie S. Sulit, Beulah Coeli Fiel and Jacqueline S. Martin appeared, with Solicitor General Benipayo arguing,

At the start of the hearing, the Chief Justice announced the following issues to be discussed in the oral arguments, to wit:

1.������ Whether the Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations otherwise known as the Blue Ribbon Committee has the power to hold a witness in contempt.

2.������ Assuming the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee has the power to hold the witness in contempt, whether public respondent observed the Senate Rules of Procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation and the Blue Ribbon Committee Rules in holding petitioner in contempt.

3.������ Whether the detention of petitioner ordered by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is in accordance with established standards of due process of law, in accordance with Section 1, Article 3 of the Constitution.

4.������ Whether petitioner may avail of executive privilege and privilege communication in refusing to answer the questions propounded by the Members of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee.

After hearing the arguments on the issues, the parties were directed in open court to SUBMIT simultaneously within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from date, their respective MEMORANDA in amplification of their arguments on the issues which may not have been fully ventilated during the hearing and expound more on the answers made to some questions propounded by the Members of the Court. They were INFORMED that with or without the memoranda this case will be deemed submitted for decision on its merits after the lapse of said period.

Furthermore, the Court Resolved to REQUIRE the SUBMISSION within the same period

(1) By the Blue Ribbon Committee of the (a) proof of publication of the Rules of the Committee or Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations and of the Senate Rules on investigation in Aid of Legislation, which may be attached to their memorandum; and (b) certified excerpt of the Journal of the Senate where the approval of the Committee Rules appears;

(2) By the Solicitor General of a Manifestation re whether or not the President had ratified the invocation of executive privilege by the Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita or whether she herself will invoke the executive privilege; and

(3) By Dr. Leodegario Torres, attending physician of Secretary Gonzales of the Holter Monitoring findings re: health condition of Secretary Gonzales after the oral argument.

After a brief meeting and deliberation on the issue at hand, the Court also Resolved to suspend any resolution of the issue of appearance in camera of Secretary Gonzales until after the Solicitor General shall have submitted to the Court the appropriate manifestation on the exercise of executive privilege.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE