Kinwestiyon ni Ping at Tito: Pag-contempt ng Senado sa mga humabol kay Bato

approve the journal before we act on the motion of the acting majority leader.I have a parliamentary inquiry.Yesterday, two motions were made.The first one made by Senator Villanueva, citing in contempt of the Senate the NBIA agents who allegedly tried to prevent Senator De La Rosa from attending yesterday's session.And the second one concerning the proposed amendments to the rules a motion made by Senator Marcoleta.On the first motion, Mr. President, I would just like to ask how my vote was counted.

There was no division of the House.

I have a copy of the PSN of yesterday's session, Mr. President, and it says, which led to, and I quote in part, which led to the body's unanimous consent to move that we cite in contempt those individuals running after Senator Ronald Bato de la Rosa.Mr. President, as per our rules, particularly Rule 41, Section 117, it says here, the vote of a senator absent from the session at the moment he is called to vote shall not be counted.At that time, we were at the lounge along with Senator Tito Soto, Senator Risa, Senator Kiko and Senator Meeks.We were at the lounge and we were monitoring the proceedings, the ongoing session.And to say that my vote is counted along with the others becauseit says here unanimous.

That's why I stood up before we approved the journal, Mr. President.

For a full explanation of that, I will refer you to the Committee on Rules, because to my knowledge, that is the tradition of this chamber.When we pass resolutions and there's no objection, whoever is present during that time is counted as to have voted for it.That has been the tradition even during the time of Senator Soto.Thank you, Mr. President.But if that is the inquiry, so that we can set straight our rules and the records, if the gentleman wishes, I will refer it to the committee on rules and ask them to report out maybe by Monday.

Thank you, Mr. President.Except that Rule 41, as I mentioned, Section 117, maliwanang po sinasabi, pagkawala yung senador sa session hall at the moment, he is called to vote.shall not be counted.Yes.

Which, for example, the resolution against the Chinese ambassador, many of us weren't in the session hall.But when they said no objection, they counted everyone.So in many, many areas.But I see the gentleman's point, and if we want to be accurate, then let's ask the Committee on Rules, which includes the minority, to come out with a better formulation?

Let it be placed on record, Mr. President, that my manifestation does not in any way show sympathy with the NBIA agents who grappled with our colleague here.In the first place, Senator de la Rosa is a fellow cavalier, not to mention a former subordinate in the defunct Presidential Anti -Organized Task Force.Task Force, and he's a fellow senator.

So just to set the record straight.That's very well taken.And for the record, Senator Lacson has always stood up if he thinks that there's a misapplication of the rules.But just on that point of the NBI, I think we're far from going into the whole truth, because early this morning, I think 7 a .m., I was watching the videos.

I saw, I do not know whose vehicle it is, but it's a white vehicle with seven.Lumalabas ng Senate, pinipilit nung NBI na ocular inspection at tignan sa loob, which is a violation if you do it anywhere in the country but right outside our gates.So although we agreed with the NBI director for a fact -finding, I think this issue is far from over.So I thank you, Senator Lacson, for making that nuance that you are talking about the rules, not the sentiment of the the Senate to protect our integrity.

On the substantive aspect of my manifestation, Mr. President, a separate concurring opinion of the, no less than the Chief Justice, Alex Gismundo.As succinctly pointed out by the Chief Justice, Alexander G. Gismundo, witnesses who are charged by Congress with giving false or evasive testimony, this is a particular case.the committee hearings.But it must be accorded stricter due process.So what happened yesterday with the President, and I was about to ask again if it was a direct contempt or an indirect contempt.Because if it was an indirect contempt, all the more that they should have been asked to explain first.

before they were cited in contempt of the Senate, and thereafter, taken under the custody of the Senate.So procedurally incorrect or infirm, yung ating ginawa.Kaya ko lang pinapoint out para i -correct lang natin yung ating sarili.

So, the Minority Leader, the former Senate President first before I comment?

Yes, Mr. President.I yield.Yes.Thank you, Mr. President.Do I take it that you mean that the practice that we've had before is that when a vote is taken and no one objects, those who answered the call of the roll are deemed present and are deemed that have approved?

I found out when they voted on the resolution where I interpolated Senator Pangilinan.So I was in my room, not on the floor.And I was explained to me that that's the procedure.So even under your Senate presidency, minority leader.So that's why I was answering Senator Lacson, that I see his point, but to my knowledge, that is the tradition.

Yes, I agree.As a matter of fact, I agree with what you said in your answer to Senator Lacson.But my point,Mr. President, then in that case, then one of us or I who have voted in favor based on our tradition would like a reconsideration.A motion for reconsideration of the motion to contend.

To contend.

Not because it is again like what Senator Larson mentioned.It's not about, it does not have anything to do with the people of the NBI or us or Senator Bato.It's only based on rules.Yes.Why?Can we move for a reconsideration, Mr. President, so I can explain why.

That is your right, Minority Leader.

All right.Thank you, Senator.

So anyone who on record voted for any motion has the right during the next day, and actually we're in the same session day, within two session days, and technically we're in the same session day.So it is your right to move for reconsideration.Then the Majority Leader will either adhere or will object.

All right, correct.Thank you, Mr. President.Now, here's the point.Based on our rules, the rules of the Senate, and it is consistent with the fact of the contempt of power of the Senate is limited only during inquiries in aid of legislation.This is what the committee on rules will have to tackle in that particular motion to sign and contempt anyone from the session hall.The impeachment court is empowered to But not the Senate.

I cannot find it in the rules.Section 18 of the Senate Resolution No. 5, the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, provides that a chairman with the concurrence of at least one member of the committee may punish or cite in contemptwitness before a committee who disobeys any order of the committee or refuses to be sworn or testify or for falsely or evasively testifying.Further, as emphasized in this Senate Resolution 145, the power of contempt is inherent to the enforcement of the right to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.So, in fact, Senate Resolution 237, such power of contempt was delegated to the subcommittees as they comprise the same membership as the main committee and should have the committee's full powers, including the power to cite and punish witnesses in contempt.All right.

Now, the other instance that we are allowed to the power of contempt, is during impeachment proceedings constituted as an impeachment court, not as a Senate, only in committee hearings in aid of legislation.So the only instance that was instance that contempt is mentioned in our rules is the duty of the sergeant -at -arms to enforce a citation in contempt issued by any committee of the Senate and to detain and place under custody witnesses, et cetera, et cetera.And the jurisprudence mentioned by Senator Laxon, by the Supreme Court in Uy -Ong versus the Senate of the Philippines, the Supreme Court discussed that concomitant to the power of legislature to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is its power of contempt impliedly provided under the 1987 Constitution.So that is my point, Mr. President.So I think we should not approve the motion to contempt right away without consulting the Committee on Rules to find out whether this is correct or not, that we can only cite in contempt.The Senate can cite in contempt when we are in aid of legislation and we are in a committee.

Before we have a ruling, let me just expound on the decision yesterday.The chair yesterday mentioned that in several Supreme Court decisions, as early as Arnold v. Nazareno, the Supreme Court upheld the inherent right to self -preservation of the legislative body.and the chair explained that if a committee is given a power to hold in contempt, so much more the plenary, and that there are two kinds of contempt, the indirect contempt and the direct contempt.So for example, if Maria and Pedro were now sitting in the gallery and they started shouting, if the sergeant at arms took them out, but they came back and they started throwing stones, we can hold them or if they had guns, we can send them for inquest or we can hold them in contempt because it's part of self -preservation.So even in the decision mentioned by Senator Laxon has to deal with the issue at hand.The ratio dissidenti or the reason for the decision always deals with only the issue at hand and the issue at hand then was the contempt powers of legislation

and aid of legislation.But despite that, Still, the Supreme Court again said, indeed, the exercise of contempt power by legislature is anchored on self -preservation, and they had a footnote from the previous cases.Having said that, I'd like to ask the pleasure of the minority leader, would you like to vote on it or would you like us to send this to the legal?and then give them a day or two to, or until Monday to...

Because the problem with...I was thinking about that, Mr. President, if you don't mind.I'm sorry for interrupting.Go ahead, sir.Because the Supreme Court itself laid down the limitations.That's why we have to discuss it perhaps in the committee or the legal.

The first limitation, the subject hearings were conducted in aid of legislation.One, two, second limitation, the assailed rules are compliant with the publication requirement of section 21, article six of the 1987 constitution.And the third limitation is that the committee failed to accord petitioners their constitutional right to due process relative to the conduct of its proceedings.Therefore, we were in plenary session yesterday and then we were suspended when this event was being discussed.Again, the pleasure, really, Mr. President, if you don't mind, is that we refer the motions to the committee on rules.

We are in agreement, but just to explain one example I gave yesterday.Even if it wasn't in the rules of court, or even if there's no precedent, if we were in the Supreme Court, and while they were in hearing, I ran after or tried to arrest or tried to mug one of the justices, they can hold me in direct contempt.because it's really about self -preservation.So the events yesterday...grave that yes, we need cooler heads because we really have to discuss the problems of agriculture, the problems of the economy, problems of transportation.