SPOUSES PNP DIRECTOR ELISEO D. DELA PAZ (RET.) AND MARIA FE C. DELA PAZ, PETITIONERS, VS. SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS AND THE SENATE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS JOSE BALAJADIA, J…

Dela Paz versus Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition brought by the spouses General Eliseo Dela Paz, retired, and Maria Fe Dela Paz against the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to strike down the committee's orders denying their challenge to its jurisdiction and commanding their arrest during a Senate hearing, and to stop the committee from investigating the so-called Moscow incident. The case matters because it draws the boundary between the Senate's power to punish for contempt in aid of legislation and the courts' power to review it, and because it teaches when a legislative inquiry touches on the relations of the Philippines with other nations.

Procedural History

The petitioners went directly to the Supreme Court. They filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on October 28, 2008, alleging that the committee's orders were rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. There were no prior rulings by a trial court or by the Court of Appeals. The committee filed its comment on January 22, 2009, and the Court resolved the petition on the merits.

Facts

On October 6, 2008, a delegation of eight senior Philippine National Police officers arrived in Moscow, Russia to attend the 77th General Assembly Session of the International Criminal Police Organization, known as INTERPOL, in St. Petersburg. General Dela Paz, then comptroller and special disbursing officer of the police force, was with the delegation. He was to retire on October 9, 2008.

On October 11, 2008, Russian authorities apprehended him at the Moscow airport departure area because he had failed to declare in writing 105,000 euros, roughly 6,930,000 pesos, found in his luggage. He also had 45,000 euros in his possession, roughly 2,970,000 pesos. The petitioners were detained for questioning. After a few days they were allowed to return to the Philippines, but the Russian government confiscated the euros.

General Dela Paz arrived in Manila on October 21, 2008, a few days after his wife. Subpoenas from the Senate committee awaited them for a hearing on the Moscow incident set for October 23, 2008. Instead of attending, the petitioners filed a challenge to jurisdiction with a motion to quash the subpoenas. The committee chairperson defended the committee's jurisdiction and commanded the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest the petitioners. A formal written arrest order signed by ten senators and approved by the Senate President followed, and the Senate later published its rules of procedure in two newspapers of general circulation. At a joint hearing on November 15, 2008, General Dela Paz voluntarily appeared and answered questions, and the chairperson dispensed with the presence of Mrs. Dela Paz for humanitarian considerations.

Issues

• Whether or not the Supreme Court may inquire into the Senate committee's exercise of jurisdiction over the petitioners, or whether the matter is a political question committed to the full discretion of the Senate.
• Whether or not the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has jurisdiction to investigate the Moscow incident under the Senate rules.
• Whether or not the arrest order against the petitioners was validly issued and whether the Senate rules were validly published.
• Whether or not the petition has been rendered moot by the petitioners' subsequent voluntary appearance before the committees.

Applicable Provisions

Section 16, paragraph 3, Article VI of the Constitution provides:

Each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings.

This is the source of the Senate's full discretionary authority over its own rules, which the Court treats as generally exempt from judicial interference.

Paragraph 12, Section 13, Rule 10 of the Senate Rules of Procedure provides:

Committee on Foreign Relations. - Fifteen (15) members. All matters relating to the relations of the Philippines with other nations generally; diplomatic and consular services; the Association of Southeast Asian Nations; the United Nations Organization and its agencies; multi-lateral organizations, all international agreements, obligations and contracts; and overseas Filipinos.

This defines the committee's subject-matter jurisdiction and is the provision the Court reads to cover the Moscow incident.

Paragraph 36, Section 13, Rule 10 of the Senate Rules of Procedure provides:

The Blue Ribbon Committee may conduct investigations on all matters relating to malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance in office by officers and employees of the government, its branches, agencies, subdivisions and instrumentalities, and on any matter of public interest on its own initiative or brought to its attention by any of its members.

This supports the joint inquiry into General Dela Paz, a retired officer who carried millions that may have come from public funds.

Ruling

First, the Court held that the challenge to the committee's jurisdiction is a political question. The power to determine the rules of proceedings is a grant of full discretionary authority to each House of Congress, generally exempt from judicial supervision except on a clear showing of arbitrary and improvident use amounting to a denial of due process. The Senate may alter its rules at any time, subject only to the requirements of quorum, voting and publication. It is not for the Court to intervene in a question of policy dependent on the wisdom, not the legality, of the Senate's action.

Second, even if the Court could inquire, the committee acted within its authority. The Moscow incident could create ripples in the relations between the Philippines and Russia. General Dela Paz went in an official capacity carrying a huge amount of public money, and the Russian government confiscated it and detained the delegation for failure to comply with immigration and currency laws. The matter also affects Philippine international obligations, since the Philippines is a state-party to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption and the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, both of which deal with the movement of considerable foreign currency across borders.

Third, the Senate decided that the inquiry would be jointly conducted by the committee and the Blue Ribbon Committee, which may investigate malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance in office and any matter of public interest.

Fourth, the formal written arrest order was signed by ten senators and approved by the Senate President in accordance with the Senate rules. Fifth, the Senate had already published its rules of procedure in two newspapers of general circulation, answering the publication objection. Sixth, the arrest order had been rendered ineffectual: General Dela Paz voluntarily appeared and submitted to the committees' jurisdiction, and the chairperson dispensed with Mrs. Dela Paz's presence, effectively withdrawing the order for her arrest.

Doctrine

Under Section 16, paragraph 3, Article VI of the Constitution, each House determines its own rules of proceedings, and that power is a political question generally beyond judicial review absent a clear showing of arbitrary and improvident use amounting to a denial of due process. A Senate committee's inquiry falls within its jurisdiction when the subject relates to the relations of the Philippines with other nations, as the Committee on Foreign Relations is empowered to examine all such matters. The validity of a contempt or arrest order in aid of legislation depends on compliance with the Senate rules, including the required signatures and approval, and on publication of those rules. Finally, voluntary submission to a legislative inquiry renders a pending arrest order ineffectual and the challenge to it moot.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit and for being moot and academic, and the arrest order was rendered ineffectual by the petitioners' voluntary appearance.

Remember This

Memorize the line that each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings, and that this power is a political question reviewable only for a clear showing of arbitrary and improvident use amounting to a denial of due process. Examiners use this case to test the political question doctrine, the scope of a Senate committee's jurisdiction over matters affecting foreign relations, and the effect of voluntary appearance on a legislative contempt order.