Limits on Congressional contempt powers

There is no question that both the Senate and the House have general and wide powers to conduct investigation in aid of legislation. But the fundamental rights of resource persons appearing before the specific committees should be respected. Their rights to privacy, freedom, liberty, and due process shouldn’t be taken for granted.

While Philippine jurisprudence is quite limited insofar as precedents are concerned, we can always refer to American cases as the facts are similar to Philippine situations. Last week's declaration of Atty. Harry Roque in contempt by the quad committees in the House brings to focus the need to study these matters painstakingly. While we recognize the authority of Congress to inquire into matters in aid of legislation, we submit, with due respect, that fundamental rights of witnesses or resource persons should be respected.

In the case of Watkins vs. United States, 354 US 178, Mr. Watkins was convicted by the US House of Representative of a violation of a specific American law, which made it a misdemeanor for any witness summoned to testify by either chambers of Congress, to refuse to answer any question relevant to the issue being investigated. He freely testified on his own acts but refused to answer questions that would identify other members of the Communist Party. His justified his refusal declaring that the questions propounded were outside the scope of the issue being inquired into. The Supreme Court held that Congress exceeded the bounds of its powers when it penalized Watkins for refusing.

In favoring Watkins, the Supreme Court held that Watkins’ rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment were violated and the House Committee's finding of guilt was annulled. The Supreme Court held that while the power of Congress to investigate in aid of legislation is broad, it isn’t unlimited. In relation to our own House Committees' questioning of Roque and other witnesses, the Supreme Court held that Congress has no general authority to expose private affairs of individuals. I heard some members of Congress asking questions concerning the alleged relationship of Roque with his former personal assistant. This line of questioning is, with due respect, irrelevant to the issue of POGOs, which was the matter under inquiry.

American jurisprudence also tells us in Watkins’ case that no legislative inquiry is an end in itself. The questioning should always be relevant, material and pertinent to the matter being inquired into. The members of Congress should avoid questions that have nothing to do to the issue at hand. Last week, I could not understand why the income tax returns of Roque and the salaries of his wife were inquired into. He was not the one being investigated. He was only a resource person. The case of Watkins vs. US reminds us that the Bill of Rights applies to legislative investigations. It is proper for any witness to invoke his right to remain silent, to raise his right against self-incrimination, and his right not to be compelled to testify against himself.

The case of Watkins vs. US, in relation to our own case of Alvin Balag vs. Senate, reminds us as well as all senators and representatives that legislative investigations aren’t proper platforms to embarrass, malign, put in bad light, or violate the basic freedoms of a witness. I thus end this brief dissertation with a paraphrase of Article 19 of the Civil Code: Every congressional committee and every member of Congress, in the exercise of their rights, in the exercise of their rights, and in the performance of their duties, must act with justice, give everyone their dues, and observe honesty and good faith.

I have witnessed many Senate and House investigations where some poor resource persons were being scolded, ridiculed, insulted, and even threatened by certain senators and members of Congress. And such spectacles are seen via national TV all over the world. I feel very sorry for such persons. They were not the ones being investigated. They were merely invited to shed light based on their personal knowledge on certain matters. And yet, many of them ended up being put on the spot. Legislators were ordering executive officials to do these and those, thus violating the principles of separation of powers, and insulting a co-equal branch of government.

With due respect, some of our honorable solons should be reminded that with great powers come even greater responsibilities, to paraphrase Spider-man and Voltaire. And to quote the Holy Book, to whom much is given, much is expected.