The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed the Senate's petition which challenged the constitutionality of then President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s order that stopped executive officials from attending the 2021 hearings of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee (SBRC) on disbursement of Covid-19 funds.
In a full court decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro Javier, the SC dismissed the petition for lack of justiciable controversy and in line with the principle of separation of powers among and between the three branches of government – executive, legislative, judiciary.
In a summary of the decision, the SC’s public information office (PIO) said that in 2021, the SBRC started an investigation on the budget utilization of the Department of Health (DOH) following a report from the Commission on Audit (COA) that there was a deficiency of P67,322,186,570.57 in public funds intended for the government’s Covid-19 response.
Subjects of the hearings were: DOH’s underutilization of its 2020 budget; procurement of Covid-19 vaccines by local government units; unspent funds, misstatements, irregularities, and deficiencies of the DOH, as found by COA; and payment claims issues between the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) and private hospitals.
The hearings were attended by officials from the executive department led by then DOJ secretary Francisco Duque III.
Then President Duterte complained of alleged browbeating of executive officials who appeared as resource persons during the SBRC hearings.
On Oct. 4, 2021, then President Duterte – through then executive secretary Salvador C. Medialdea – issued a memorandum to all executive officials stopping them from attending the SBRC hearings.
The memorandum, in effect, stated that the SBRC’s inquiry has turned into a preliminary investigation to identify persons liable for irregularities and, thus, the Senate has stepped into the mandates of co-equal branches of government.
Viewing the memorandum as an obstruction to its constitutional function to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, the Senate passed a resolution on Nov. 9, 2021 to challenge the presidential issuance before the SC for alleged unconstitutionality.
The Senate also sought the issuance of a preliminary injunction that would stop the implementation of the presidential memorandum.
In resolving the petition, the SC pointed out the requisites in filing a petition, like that filed by the Senate, to wit: “the writ is directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the course of law.”
The SC said the Senate’s petition failed to meet the third requisite as the SBRC itself has a remedy within its office to resolve the jurisdictional challenge raised by in the presidential memorandum.
It pointed out that under Section 3 of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, if the jurisdiction of the committee is challenged on any ground, the said issue must first be resolved by the committee before proceeding with any inquiry.
The SC said:
“Verily, the Memorandum is founded on a jurisdictional challenge -- whether the subject inquiry of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee properly falls within its jurisdiction or within the jurisdiction of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created under the Bayanihan Acts.
“In asserting that the subject inquiry falls within the jurisdiction of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created under the Bayanihan Acts, may the President object to the inquiry as not being in aid of legislation?
“Notably, the forum to address such jurisdictional claim is the Senate and its committees themselves. This recognition is meant to accord the highest respect for the Senate's own Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation.
“Undeniably, therefore, the Blue Ribbon Committee of the Senate has a remedy within its office to resolve the jurisdictional challenge raised by the President.
“To be sure, the Court cannot exercise the power on behalf of the Blue Ribbon Committee of the Senate lest the sacred principle of separation of powers where mutual respect by and between the three departments of the government be unduly violated.
“We consequently defer to the remedy found within the Senate's own lofty jurisdiction. The availability of this remedy under Section 3 of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation effectively proscribes a premature resort to the present special civil action for certiorari.
“In the same breadth, we cannot rule that there exists an actual case or controversy that is ripe for judicial adjudication. There is no immediate or threatened injury to the power of the Senate because it has yet to exercise the same. Hence, we still cannot tell whether this power, despite its proper exercise, has been disobeyed by the President as a result of his Memorandum.
“Unless and until the Senate has resolved with finality the jurisdictional challenge of the President, there can be no actual case or controversy to speak of yet.
“In sum, the resolution of the petition does not hinge ultimately on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the Memorandum. The Constitutional challenge may be resolved on some other ground -- here, by referencing the aforementioned power of the Senate under its own Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation.
“All told, the Court is constrained to dismiss the petition for having been prematurely filed. The Court deems it no longer necessary to resolve the other issues raised by the parties.
“Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, and the application for a preliminary injunction, denied. So ordered.”