Bert Gonzales and Jean Arnault

The dilemma faced by National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales brings up the case of Jean Arnault, who hogged the front pages of Manila’s newspapers in the 1950s. Sen. Edgardo Angara mentioned the French lawyer’s having been cited for contempt by the Philippine Senate, and former Solicitor General Raul Goco confirmed to me the senator’s observation.

Both Gonzales and Arnault refused to divulge names of persons they had made transactions with, and both were charged with contempt by the Senate and turned over to the Sergeant-at-Arms for custody. In the case of Renault, though, he was detained in the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa, Rizal, for several months. Gonzales is confined at the Philippine Heart Center for an ailment, although he remains in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and his fate – whether to be confined in the New Bilibid prison, depends on the outcome of the discussions between the Senate and Malacañang.

Who was Arnault, and why is his case a precedent in the Senate’s declaring non-divulgement of data contemptuous?

Government Reports show that Jean Arnault was an attorney-in-fact of Ernest H. Burt in the negotiations for the purchase of the Buenavista and Tambobong Estates by the Government of the Philippines. The purchase was effected on Oct. 21, 1949 and the price paid for both estates was P5,000,000. On Feb. 27, 1950, the Senate of the Philippines adopted Resolution No. 8, which created a Special Committee to determine "whether the said purchase was honest, valid and proper, and whether the price involved in the deal was fair and just, the parties responsible therefore, for any other facts the Committee may deem proper in the premises."

The special committee called and examined various witnesses, among the most important of whom was Jean L. Arnault. An intriguing question which the committee sought to resolve was that involved in the apparent "unnecessariness and irregularity of the Government’s paying to Burt the total sum of P1,500,000 for his alleged interest of only P20,000 in the two estates – the Buenavista and Tambobong Estates. The committee sought to determine who were responsible for and who benefited from the transaction at the expense of the Government."

G.R. No. L-3820 notes that Arnault testified that two checks payable to Burt aggregating P1,500,000 were delivered to him on the afternoon of Oct. 29, 1949, that on the same date he opened a new account in the name of Ernest H. Burt with the Philippine National Bank in which he deposited the two checks aggregating P1,500,000; and that on the same occasion he drew on said account two checks; one for P500,000, which he transferred to the account of the Associated Agencies, Inc., with the Philippine National Bank, and another for P440,000 payable to cash, which he himself cashed. The committee wanted to determine the ultimate recipient of the sum of P440,000.

Proceedings during the investigation of Arnault are reminiscent of the feigned innocence of Secretary Gonzales.

Arnault, reading from a note, declared that for questions involving the disposition of funds, he took the position that the transactions were legal, that no laws were being violated, that all requisites had been complied with, and that he acted in a purely functional capacity of representative. He begged to be excused from making an answer which might later be used against him, as he had been assured that it was his constitutional right to refuse to incriminate himself.

In a subsequent meeting, SENATOR DE VERA asked, "If the funds were disposed of in such a manner that no laws were violated, how is it that when you were asked by the committee to tell what steps you took to have this money delivered to Burt, you refused to answer the question, saying that it would incriminate you?

Arnault: Because it violates the rights of a citizen to privacy in his dealing with other people.

The Chairman Of The Committee: The check of P440,000 which you also made on October 29, 1949, is payable to cash; and upon cashing this P440,000 on October 29, 1949, what did you do with that amount?

Arnault: I turned it over to a certain person.

The Chairman: The whole amount of P440,000?

Mr. Arnault: Yes.

The Chairman: Who was that certain person to whom you delivered the P440,000 which you cashed on October 29, 1949?

Mr. Arnault: I don’t remember the name; he was a representative of Burt.

The Chairman: That certain person who represented Burt to whom you delivered the big amount on October 29, 1949, gave you a receipt for the amount?

Mr. Arnault: No.

The Chairman: Neither did you ask a receipt?

Mr. Arnault: I didn’t ask.

The Chairman: Did that certain person have any intervention in the prosecution of the two cases involving the Buenavista and Tambobong estates?

Mr. Arnault: Not that I know of.

The Chairman: Is that certain person related to any high government official?

Mr. Arnault: No, I do not know.

The Chairman: Why can you not tell us the name of that certain person?

Mr. Arnault: Because I am not sure of his name; I cannot remember the name.

On May 15, 1950, Arnault was haled before the bar of the Senate, which approved and read to him the resolution that he be "arraigned for contempt consisting of contumacious acts committed by him during the investigation conducted by the special committee" and ordered his detention and confinement at the New Bilibid Prison until he should have purged himself of contempt of the Senate by revealing the person to whom he gave the sum of P440,000.

Arnault filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Supreme Court, asking that he be relieved from his confinement in Bilibid. On July 18, 1950, the High Tribunal found Arnault to have been "vociferous and militant in claiming constitutional rights and privileges but patently recreant to his duties and obligations to the Government which protects those rights under the law." The High Tribunal denied Arnault’s petition.

In December, 1951, while in confinement in Bilibid, Arnault filed a petition for the habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance, Rizal, Pasay City Branch, alleging among other things that he had purged himself of the contempt charge when he disclosed the fact during another Senate special committee hearing, that the one to whom he gave the P440,000 was a certain Jess D. Santos and submitted corroborative evidence thereof.

But the Senate Committee did not believe his statement that the person to whom he delivered the amount was Jess D. Santos, and slapped on Arnault a second contempt of the Senate. The Court of First Instance upheld the action of the Philippine Senate. Arnault appealed the CFI’s judgment before the Supreme Court, which, however, denied his petition.

Arnault for sure has been released from detention. The lesson learned here is not to tell a lie, not to withhold the truth on matters of great national interest.

The case of Secretary Norberto Gonzales is different in that the Senate special committee asked him for the names of donors who had given support for a contract with Venable LLP, a law firm in the United States tasked to solicit US congressional funding and support for, among other things, the administration’s move to amend the Constitution, but the Secretary has refused to divulge the identity of the donors.

* * *

My email: [email protected]