Spouses Dela Paz (Ret.) vs. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, et al.
Retired PNP General Eliseo dela Paz and his wife filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's investigation into the "Moscow incident" (where Gen. dela Paz was apprehended for carrying approximately P10 million in undeclared euros while on official travel) and to enjoin the implementation of an arrest order against them. The SC dismissed the petition, holding that the investigation falls within the committee's jurisdiction over foreign relations and treaty compliance, that the Senate Rules were properly published, and that the petition was moot since Gen. dela Paz voluntarily appeared at the hearing and the arrest order against his wife was withdrawn.
Primary Holding
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has jurisdiction to investigate incidents involving Philippine public officials abroad that may affect international relations and the State's compliance with treaty obligations; furthermore, the constitutional grant to each House of Congress of the power to determine its own rules of proceedings is a political question generally exempt from judicial interference.
Background
The case arises from the legislative inquiry into the apprehension of retired PNP General Eliseo dela Paz at a Moscow airport on October 11, 2008, for failure to declare a large amount of euros (approximately P9.9 million) found in his luggage while he was part of an official Philippine delegation to an INTERPOL conference.
History
N/A — Original action for certiorari and prohibition filed directly with the SC on October 28, 2008; no prior proceedings in lower courts.
Facts
- October 6, 2008: A Philippine delegation of eight senior PNP officers arrived in Moscow to attend the 77th ICPO-INTERPOL General Assembly Session in St. Petersburg (October 6-10, 2008)
- Gen. Eliseo dela Paz was then PNP Comptroller and Special Disbursing Officer, scheduled to retire on October 9, 2008
- October 11, 2008: Gen. dela Paz was apprehended at the Moscow airport departure area for failure to declare 105,000 euros (approximately P6.93 million) and possession of an additional 45,000 euros (approximately P2.97 million)
- Petitioners were detained for questioning; allowed to return to the Philippines after several days, but the Russian government confiscated the euros
- October 21, 2008: Gen. dela Paz arrived in Manila
- Subpoenas were issued by respondent Committee for an investigation scheduled on October 23, 2008
- October 23, 2008: Instead of attending, petitioners filed a "Challenge to Jurisdiction with Motion to Quash Subpoena"; Senator Santiago defended the committee's jurisdiction and verbally commanded respondent Balajadia to arrest petitioners
- October 28, 2008: Petition was filed with the SC
- November 15, 2008: Gen. dela Paz voluntarily appeared at the joint hearing conducted by the respondent Committee and the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee; Senator Santiago granted the motion to dispense with Mrs. dela Paz's presence for humanitarian considerations
Arguments of the Petitioners
- Respondent Committee lacks jurisdiction because the Moscow incident does not involve "state to state relations" as required under Paragraph 12, Section 13, Rule 10 of the Senate Rules
- The warrant of arrest was issued without the required signatures of the majority of the committee members, violating the Senate Rules
- The Senate Rules were not published as required by the Constitution and thus cannot serve as basis for the investigation
Arguments of the Respondents
- (Specific arguments in the Comment not detailed in the Resolution; however, the SC noted that the Senate had subsequently published its Rules and issued a formal written arrest order)
Issues
- Procedural Issues:
- Whether the petition has become moot and academic
- Substantive Issues:
- Whether respondent Senate Foreign Relations Committee has jurisdiction to investigate the Moscow incident involving petitioners
- Whether the Senate Rules of Procedure were validly published
- Whether the arrest order against petitioners was validly issued
Ruling
- Procedural: The petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. The arrest order became ineffectual when Gen. dela Paz voluntarily appeared at the November 15, 2008 hearing and submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Senate Committees. The order for Mrs. dela Paz's arrest was effectively withdrawn when Senator Santiago granted the motion to dispense with her presence.
- Substantive:
- Jurisdiction: Respondent Committee has jurisdiction over the investigation. The Moscow incident could create ripples in Philippines-Russia relations and affects Philippine international obligations under the UN Convention Against Corruption and the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, which require state parties to monitor cross-border movement of cash. Gen. dela Paz was in Moscow in an official capacity carrying public funds.
- Publication: The Senate Rules were validly published in the October 31, 2008 issues of the Manila Daily Bulletin and Malaya.
- Arrest Order: The subsequent issuance of a formal written Order of arrest signed by ten senators and approved by the Senate President validated the arrest process in accordance with the Senate Rules.
Doctrines
- Political Question Doctrine — Under Section 16(3), Article VI of the Constitution, each House has full discretionary authority to determine its rules of proceedings. This power is generally exempt from judicial supervision and interference, except upon a clear showing of arbitrary and improvident use constituting a denial of due process. The SC applied this to decline review of the Senate's determination of its committee's jurisdiction and its interpretation of its own rules.
- Legislative Inquiry in Aid of Legislation — The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has jurisdiction over "all matters relating to the relations of the Philippines with other nations generally" and international agreements. The SC held that investigating a public official's apprehension abroad for carrying undeclared public funds falls within this scope as it affects diplomatic relations and compliance with international conventions against corruption and transnational organized crime.
- Mootness — A case becomes moot when supervening events render the relief sought unnecessary or the controversy no longer exists. Voluntary submission to jurisdiction and withdrawal of the contested order remove the justiciable controversy.
Key Excerpts
- "Each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings." (Section 16(3), Article VI, Constitution)
- "This provision has been traditionally construed as a grant of full discretionary authority to the Houses of Congress in the formulation, adoption and promulgation of its own rules. As such, the exercise of this power is generally exempt from judicial supervision and interference, except on a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use of the power as will constitute a denial of due process."
- "Thus, it is not for this Court to intervene in what is clearly a question of policy, an issue dependent upon the wisdom, not the legality, of the Senate's action."
- "The Moscow incident could create ripples in the relations between the Philippines and Russia."
Precedents Cited
- Tañada v. Cuenco, 100 Phil. 101 (1957) — Cited for the definition of political question as one which, under the Constitution, is to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch.
- Morrero v. Bocar, 37 O.G. 445 — Cited for the principle that judicial interference with the legislative power to determine rules of proceedings is permitted only upon clear showing of arbitrary and improvident use constituting denial of due process.
Provisions
- Section 16(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution — Grants each House the power to determine its rules of proceedings; constitutional basis for treating the Senate's rule-making as a political question.
- Paragraph 12, Section 13, Rule 10 of the Senate Rules — Defines the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Relations over matters relating to relations with other nations, diplomatic and consular services, and international agreements.
- Paragraph 36, Section 13, Rule 10 of the Senate Rules — Defines the Blue Ribbon Committee's jurisdiction over malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance by public officers.
- Article 14(2) of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption — Requires state parties to consider implementing measures to detect and monitor cross-border movement of cash and negotiable instruments.
- Article 7(1) and (2) of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime — Requires state parties to institute regulatory regimes to detect money-laundering and monitor cross-border transfers of substantial quantities of cash.
Notable Concurring Opinions
N/A — Unanimous decision. (Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, and Peralta, JJ., concur)