This case involves a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition challenging the power of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete and its Ad Hoc Committee to issue a subpoena to officers of NORECO II and to punish them for contempt for non-appearance in an investigation concerning alleged inefficient power lines. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that local legislative bodies, unlike the national Congress, do not possess inherent powers to issue subpoenas to non-members or to punish them for contempt in the absence of an express constitutional or statutory grant of such powers, and further held that the subject of the investigation was beyond the Sangguniang Panlungsod's jurisdiction.
Primary Holding
Local legislative bodies, such as a Sangguniang Panlungsod, do not possess the inherent power to compel the attendance of witnesses who are not their members through subpoena, nor the power to punish such non-members for contempt, as these powers are judicial in nature and must be expressly granted by statute or the Constitution; such powers cannot be implied from the delegation of legislative functions.
Background
The Ad Hoc Committee of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete initiated an investigation "in connection with pending legislation related to the operations of public utilities," specifically focusing on the alleged use of inefficient power lines by Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (NORECO II) in Dumaguete City. This led to the issuance of a subpoena to NORECO II's officials and a subsequent order for them to show cause for contempt due to non-appearance, prompting the legal challenge.
History
-
The Ad Hoc Committee of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete issued a subpoena dated October 25, 1985, to petitioners Paterio Torres and Arturo Umbac.
-
Petitioners Torres and Umbac filed a motion to quash the subpoena before the Ad Hoc Committee.
-
The Ad Hoc Committee denied the motion to quash and issued an Order on October 29, 1985, directing petitioners Torres and Umbac to show cause why they should not be punished for legislative contempt for their failure to appear at the investigation.
-
Petitioners filed a special civil action of Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and/or Restraining Order before the Supreme Court.
-
The Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on November 7, 1985, enjoining respondents from compelling the attendance and testimony of petitioners and from issuing or executing any contempt order.
-
The Supreme Court rendered its decision on November 05, 1987, granting the petition.
Facts
- The Ad Hoc Committee of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete, chaired by respondent Antonio S. Ramas Uypitching, initiated an investigation concerning alleged inefficient "pre-war vintage" power lines used by petitioner Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (NORECO II).
- On October 25, 1985, the Ad Hoc Committee issued a subpoena to petitioners Paterio Torres (Chairman of the Board, NORECO II) and Arturo Umbac (General Manager, NORECO II), requiring their attendance and testimony at an investigation scheduled for October 29, 1985.
- Petitioners Torres and Umbac moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the power to investigate such matters lay with the National Electrification Administration (NEA) and that the Sangguniang Panlungsod lacked specific authority.
- On October 29, 1985, the Ad Hoc Committee denied the motion to quash and issued an Order directing Torres and Umbac to show cause why they should not be punished for legislative contempt for their failure to appear at the investigation.
- The investigation was intended to be "in connection with pending legislation related to the operations of public utilities" in Dumaguete City, where NORECO II had its principal place of business.
Arguments of the Petitioners
- The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete lacks the power to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses who are not its members, and consequently, it lacks the power to order the arrest of witnesses who fail to obey its subpoena.
- Even if the Sangguniang Panlungsod possessed such powers, it could not exercise them in an investigation concerning matters affecting the terms and conditions of NORECO II's franchise, as such matters are beyond its jurisdiction.
- The power to investigate and order the improvement of alleged inefficient power lines is exclusively lodged with the National Electrification Administration (NEA).
- Neither the Charter of the City of Dumaguete nor the Local Government Code grants the Sangguniang Panlungsod any specific power to investigate alleged inefficient power lines of NORECO II.
Arguments of the Respondents
- The power to conduct investigations in aid of legislation, and consequently the power to punish for contempt in such inquiries, is inherent in the legislative functions performed by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete.
- The contempt power, if not expressly granted, is necessarily implied from the powers granted to the Sangguniang Panlungsod.
- An inquiry into the installation or use of inefficient power lines by NORECO II and its effect on power consumption costs for Dumaguete residents is well within the jurisdiction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod and its committees.
Issues
- Whether the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete or its Ad Hoc Committee has the power to issue a subpoena to, and punish for contempt, non-members in connection with a legislative inquiry.
- Whether the investigation into NORECO II's alleged use of inefficient power lines falls within the jurisdiction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete.
Ruling
- The Supreme Court granted the petition, declaring the subpoena and the show-cause order null and void for being ultra vires.
- The Court ruled that local legislative bodies, unlike the national Congress, do not possess inherent powers to issue subpoenas to non-members or to punish them for contempt in the absence of an express constitutional or statutory grant. These powers are judicial in nature and cannot be implied from delegated legislative powers.
- The Court distinguished the contempt power of Congress, which is rooted in self-preservation as a co-equal branch of government, from the powers of local legislative bodies, which are mere creatures of law.
- The Court further held that even if such powers existed, the subject matter of the investigation – the efficiency of NORECO II's electric service and compliance with its franchise – was beyond the jurisdiction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod and fell under the purview of the National Electrification Administration (NEA) as per P.D. No. 269.
- While the Sangguniang Panlungsod can enact ordinances regulating the installation and maintenance of power lines for safety (under Sec. 177(j) of the Local Government Code) and can conduct investigations in aid thereof, it can only invite resource persons and cannot compel attendance or punish for non-attendance.
Doctrines
- Delegated Legislative Power — This refers to the legislative authority conferred by the national legislature upon local government units. The Court emphasized that local legislative bodies, like the Sangguniang Panlungsod, possess only delegated legislative power and are mere creatures of law, distinguishing them from the national Congress which is a repository of legislative power under the Constitution.
- Inherent Power of Congress to Punish for Contempt — This is the power of the national legislature to punish non-members for contempt, not expressly granted by the Constitution but recognized as essential for its self-preservation, authority, and dignity as a co-equal branch of government. The Court held this power is sui generis and does not extend to local legislative bodies.
- Power of Inquiry in Aid of Legislation — This is an essential auxiliary to the legislative function, enabling a legislative body to gather information necessary for wise and effective legislation. While Congress possesses this with compulsory process, the Court found that local legislative bodies can conduct inquiries but lack the power to compel attendance or punish for contempt without express statutory authority.
- Separation of Powers — This principle dictates that the different branches of government (legislative, executive, judicial) have distinct powers and responsibilities. The Court invoked this to state that allowing local legislative bodies to exercise judicial powers like issuing subpoenas and punishing for contempt without express statutory basis would violate this doctrine.
- Ultra Vires — This refers to acts performed by a body or official beyond the scope of powers legally conferred upon them. The Court declared the subpoena and show-cause order ultra vires because the Sangguniang Panlungsod lacked the power to issue them and because the subject matter of the investigation was beyond its jurisdiction.
- Sui Generis Nature of Congressional Contempt Power — This principle highlights that the contempt power of the national legislature is unique and arises from its character as one of the three independent and coordinate branches of government, essential for its self-preservation. The Court stated that local legislative bodies cannot claim this power for the same reasons.
- Strict Construction of Powers Derogating Individual Rights — Powers that compel testimony and can lead to punishment, such as the subpoena and contempt powers, potentially infringe on individual rights and therefore must be expressly granted by law and cannot be liberally construed or implied, especially for bodies not possessing inherent judicial authority like local legislative bodies.
Key Excerpts
- "(T)he power of inquiry - with process to enforce it - is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change..." (Quoting McGrain vs. Daugherty via Arnault v. Nazareno).
- "The contempt power of the legislature is, therefore, sui generis, and local legislative bodies cannot correctly claim to possess it for the same reasons that the national legislature does. The power attaches not to the discharge of legislative functions per se but to the character of the legislature as one of the three independent and coordinate branches of government."
- "To allow local legislative bodies or administrative agencies to exercise these powers without express statutory basis would run afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers."
- "There being no provision in the Local Government Code explicitly granting local legislative bodies, the power to issue compulsory process and the power to punish for contempt, the Sanggunian Panlungsod of Dumaguete is devoid of power to punish the petitioners Torres and Umbac for contempt."
Precedents Cited
- Arnault v. Nazareno (87 Phil. 29 [1950]) — Referenced extensively to establish the basis and scope of the Philippine Congress's power to punish non-members for contempt in aid of legislative inquiry, emphasizing it as essential for effective legislation even without express constitutional grant. The current case distinguished this power of Congress from that of local legislative bodies.
- Arnault v. Balagtas (97 Phil. 358 [1955]) — Cited to further elaborate on the rationale that Congress's power to punish recalcitrant witnesses is founded upon reason and policy, being implied or incidental to the exercise of legislative power for self-preservation. This was contrasted with the lack of such inherent power in local councils.
- McGrain vs. Daugherty (273 U.S. 135) — Cited (via Arnault v. Nazareno) as a U.S. precedent supporting the power of legislative inquiry with process to enforce it as an essential auxiliary to the legislative function.
- Anderson vs. Dunn (6 Wheaton, 204) — Cited (via Arnault v. Nazareno) as a U.S. precedent indicating that the express power of Congress to punish its own members does not exclude the power to punish non-members for contempt.
- Kilbourn vs. Thompson (26 L. ed., 377) — Cited (via Arnault v. Nazareno) for the principle that a person can only be punished for contumacy if their testimony is required in a matter into which the legislative House has jurisdiction to inquire. This was applied to argue that the Sangguniang's inquiry was ultra vires.
- Commissioner v. Cloribel (127 Phil. 716 [1967]) — Referenced to illustrate the inherent power of courts to enforce their authority and preserve their integrity, drawing an analogy to Congress's assertion of contempt power for similar reasons of self-preservation.
- In re Kelly (35 Phil. 944 [1916]) — Also referenced alongside Cloribel to support the concept of inherent powers of courts, by analogy to Congress's power of contempt.
Provisions
- 1973 Constitution — Mentioned as lacking an express provision granting local legislative bodies the power to subpoena witnesses or punish non-members for contempt.
- Local Government Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 337) — Referenced as the primary law governing local legislative bodies, which does not expressly grant them the power to issue compulsory process or punish for contempt.
- Sec. 4 of B.P. 337 — Cited regarding liberal rules of interpretation in favor of local autonomy, but the Court found this inapplicable for implying contempt powers due to potential derogation of individual rights.
- Sec. 177 of B.P. 337 (specifically Sec. 177(j)) — Enumerates the powers and duties of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, including the power to regulate the installation of electric wires if dangerous or defective. The Court noted this allows for investigations in aid of ordinance-making but not compulsory process.
- Presidential Decree No. 269 (National Electrification Administration Decree) — Cited as the law transferring franchise powers over electric cooperatives from local governments to the National Electrification Administration (NEA).
- Sec. 42 of P.D. No. 269 — Specifically cited for repealing the franchise-granting powers of local governments and transferring them to NEA, while preserving local power to ensure safe installation and operation of electric facilities.
- Sec. 43(2) of P.D. No. 269 — Referenced to show NEA's power to repeal or cancel franchises if a cooperative fails to provide adequate service, indicating NEA's jurisdiction over service efficiency.
- Sec. 47 & Sec. 54 of P.D. No. 269 — Cited to demonstrate NEA's authority to conduct hearings, issue subpoenas, and seek court assistance for disobedience, establishing NEA as the proper body for such inquiries.