In the Matter for Issuance of Writ of Habeas

Corpus of Camilo L. Sabio vs Hon. Sen. Richard

Gordon
G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006

to Senate Res. 455 constitutes violations to petitioners

rights against self-incrimination.
Issue: W/N petitioners rights
incrimination were violated.

against

self-

Facts:
Senator
Miriam
Defensor-Santiago
introduced
Philippine Senate Resolution No. 455 (Senate Res. No.
455) directing an inquiry in aid of legislation on the
anomalous losses incurred by the Philippine Overseas
Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippine
Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT),
and PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation (PHC) due to
the alleged improprieties in their operations by their
respective Board of Directors. The Senate invited
Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG)
Chairman Camilo L. Sabio to be the resource person in
a public meeting that would deliberate on the issues
presented in Senate Res. No. 455.
Chairman Sabio, however, declined the invitation,
invoking Section 4, paragraph (b) of Executive Order
No. 1, which provides: No member or staff of the
Commission shall be required to testify or produce
evidence in any judicial, legislative or administrative
proceeding concerning matters within its official
cognizance. Senator Richard J. Gordon issued a
subpoena ad testificandum, requiring Chairman Sabio
and the four PCGG Commissioners to appear in the
public hearing scheduled on August 23, 2006 and
testify on what they know relative to the matters
specified in Senate Res. No. 455. Again, Chairman
Sabio refused to appear. Another notice was sent to
Chairman Sabio requiring him to appear and testify on
the same subject matter set on September 6, 2006,
but Chairman Sabio still did not comply. Eventually,
Chairman Sabio and the PCGG Commissioners were
arrested for contempt of the Senate and brought to the
Senate premises where they were detained.
Chairman Sabio filed the present petition for habeas
corpus (G.R. No. 174340) and, together with the four
PCGG Commissioners and the PCGGs nominees to
PHC, petition for certiorari and prohibition (G.R. No.
174318).
They
allege
that
the
investigating
committees concerned disregarded Sec. 4(b) of E.O.
No. 1 without any justifiable reason, the inquiries
conducted by the said committees are not in aid of
legislation, the inquiries were conducted in the
absence of duly published Senate Rules of Procedure
Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, and the said
committees are not vested with the power of
contempt.
Moreover, in G.R. No. 174177, petitioners Philcomsat
Holdings Corporation and its directors and officers
alleged: that the conduct of legislative inquiry pursuant

Held:
This Court holds that the respondent Senate
Committees inquiry does not violate the
petitioners right to privacy and right against
self-incrimination.
Anent the right against self-incrimination, this may be
invoked by the PHC officers and directors only when
the incriminating question is being asked, since they
have no way of knowing in advance the nature or
effect of the questions to be asked of them. That this
right may possibly be violated or abused is no ground
for denying the investigating committees their power
of inquiry.
So long as the constitutional rights of witnesses, like
Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners, will be
respected by the investigating committees, it is the
duty of the former to cooperate with the latter in their
efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent
legislative action. The unremitting obligation of every
citizen is to respond to subpoenae, to respect the
dignity of the Congress and its Committees, and to
testify fully with respect to matters within the realm of
proper investigation.

and for being contrary to the due process and equal

protection guarantees.
Issue: W/N Sections 36 (c) (d) (f) and (g) should
be struck down as unconstitutional for infringing
on the constitutional right to privacy, against
unreasonable search and seizure, and the right
against self-incrimination.
Held:

Social Justice Society vs Dangerous Drugs Board

G.R. No. 157870, 158633, 161658, November 3,
2008
Facts:
Before the Court are 3 consolidated petitions assailing
the constitutionality of Section 36 of RA 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 insofar
as it requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for
public office, students of secondary and tertiary
schools, officers and employees of public and private
offices, and persons charged before the prosecutors
office with certain offenses.
According to Aquilino Pimentel Jr., a senator of the RP
and a candidate for re-election in May 2004 elections,
said mandatory drug testing imposes an additional
qualification for Senators beyond that which are
provided by the Constitution. No provision in the
Constitution authorizes the Congress or the COMELEC
to expand the qualification requirements of candidates
for senator.
Meanwhile, SJS contends that Section 36(c)(d)(f) and
(g) are constitutionally infirm as it constitutes undue
delegation of legislative power when they give
unbridled discretion to schools and employers to
determine the manner of drug testing. It also violates
the equal protection clause as it can be used to harass
a student or employee deemed undesirable. The
constitutional right against unreasonable searches is
also breached.
In addition to the abovementioned contentions, Atty.
Manuel J. Laserna, Jr., as a citizen and taxpayers
maintains that said provision should be struck down as
unconstitutional for infringing on the constitutional
right to privacy, the right against unreasonable search
and seizure, and the right against self-incrimination,

Unlike the situation covered by Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA

9165, the Court finds no valid justification for
mandatory drug testing for persons accused of crimes.
In the case of students, the constitutional viability of
the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing
for students emanates primarily from the waiver by the
students of their right to privacy when they seek entry
to the school, and from their voluntarily submitting
their persons to the parental authority of school
authorities. In the case of private and public
employees, the constitutional soundness of the
mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing
proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug test
policy and requirement.
We find the situation entirely different in the case of
persons charged before the public prosecutor's office
with criminal offenses punishable with six (6) years and
one (1) day imprisonment. The operative concepts in
the mandatory drug testing are "randomness" and
"suspicionless." In the case of persons charged with a
crime before the prosecutor's office, a mandatory drug
testing can never be random or suspicionless. The
ideas of randomness and being suspicionless are
antithetical to their being made defendants in a
criminal complaint. They are not randomly picked;
neither are they beyond suspicion. When persons
suspected of committing a crime are charged, they are
singled out and are impleaded against their will. The
persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled
before the prosecutor's office and peaceably
submitting themselves to drug testing, if that be the
case, do not necessarily consent to the procedure, let
alone waive their right to privacy. 40 To impose
mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant
attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal
prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of RA
9165. Drug testing in this case would violate a persons'
right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the
Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are
veritably forced to incriminate themselves.