'~

.. ·.Ill
, t L;~·L:u· \''J:\"G
' " ' ,' f. ~
'-lw•, ,~..,---"-""'""-....

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
2018AUG 14 AH/1=24
MANILA

SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C.

CALIDA, MILAGROS 0. CALIDA,
JOSEF CALIDA, MICHELLE
CALIDA, AND MARK JOREL 240873
CALIDA, G.R. SP No. _ _ _ __
Petitioners, For: Certiorari and Pro hi bi tion
with Urgent Application for
-versus- issuance of Temporary
Restraining Order and/ or Writ
of Preliminary Injunction
SENATOR ANTONIO "SONNY"
TRILLANES IV,
Respondent.
x----------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION

WITH URGENT APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Petitioners JOSE C. CALIDA, MILAGROS 0. CALIDA,

JOSEF CALIDA, MICHELLE CALIDA, AND MARK JOREL
CALIDA (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Petitioners"), by
counsel, respectfully state:

NATURE AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

1. This is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under

Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:

"Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one

Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.

1
 Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government."

2. Petitioners MILAGROS 0. CALIDA, JOSEF CALIDA,

MICHELLE CALIDA, AND MARK JOREL CALIDA, private
Filipino citizens, and Petitioner JOSE C. CALIDA (hereinafter
referred to as "Petitioner Solicitor General") invoke the judicial
power of this Honorable Court to determine whether Respondent, a
Senator and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Civil Service and
Government Reorganization and Professional Regulation, committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
in inviting them to appear at an inquiry on 16 August 2018, 1:00 PM,
"for the specific purpose of threshing out the various issues arising"
from Proposed Senate Resolution No. 760 (hereinafter referred to as
the "Proposed Resolution" or "Proposed Resolution No. 760"). The
invitation states an alleged conflict of interest on the part of Petitioner
Solicitor General arising from the security service contracts between
several national government agencies and Vigilant Investigative and
Security Agency, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Vigilant").

Petitioners invoke the judicial power of this Honorable Court to

ensure that the limitations and restrictions embodied in our
Constitution are given due regard.

3. In Bengzon Jr. vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee 1 , the

Supreme Court En Banc ruled that it exercises jurisdiction over
petitions to determine the extent of the power of the Senate, or any of
its Committees, to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation:

"The 'allocation of constitutional boundaries' is a task

that this Court must perform under the Constitution.
Moreover, as held in a recent case,' (t)he political question
doctrine neither interposes an obstacle to judicial
determination of the rival claims. The jurisdiction to
delimit constitutional boundaries has been given to this
Court. It cannot abdicate that obligation mandated by the
1987 Constitution, although said provision by no means

1 G.R. No. 89914, 20November1991.

2
 does away with the applicability of the principle 1n
appropriate cases.'

The Court is thus of the considered view that it has

jurisdiction over the present controversy for the
purpose of determining the scope and extent of the
power of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to conduct
inquiries into private affairs in purported aid of
legislation." (Emphasis supplied)

4. Petitioners respectfully submit that this Petition must be

urgently acted upon by this Honorable Court because Respondent's
inquiry is set to take place on 16 August 2018, Thursday. If a
restraining order is not issued by the the Supreme Court, Respondent
is certain to proceed in taking coercive measures in order to compel
Petitioners' attendance at the intended inquiry on 16 August 2018 or
other subsequent dates, and irreparably violate their rights against
unreasonable processes of a Senator.

APPLICATION TO REFER THE PETITION TO

THESUPREMECOURTENBANC

5. Section 3, Rule 2 of The Interim Rules of the Supreme

Court2 enumerate matters which the Supreme Court must act on En
Banc. Included in the enumeration are matters that raise novel
questions of law 3 and those that the Supreme Court En Banc deems of
sufficient importance to merit its attention. 4

6. The Petition raises two novel issues that are not yet
decided by the Supreme Court. First, Petitioners herein question the
act of a Senator, acting on solely, to conduct investigations in aid of
legislation without the explicit authority of the Senate and without a
legislative purpose. Second, Petitioners also question whether a
Senator's predetermination that Petitioner Solicitor General has a
conflict of interest using a test that deviates from Republic Act No.
6713 and Rabe vs. Floress ("Rabe"), the established jurisprudence, is
within the bounds of a valid legislative investigation.

z A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC

3 Section 2(c), Rule 3 of A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC.
4 Section 2(n), Rule 3 of A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC.
s G.R. No. 183591, 14 October 2008.

3
 7. While the Supreme Court, on numerous occasions,
decided on issues relating to the nature and constitutionality of
inquiries in aid of legislation, it has not yet ruled on the foregoing
issues that this Petition puts forward.

8. These novel issues warrant the attention of the Supreme

Court En Banc because the act of Respondent, if tolerated, is capable
of repetition yet evading review. The Petition contains allegations of
a serious nature that, if not reviewed and nullified, might have
permeating effects on the conduct of legislators and may set a
precedent of abuse. If Respondent's actions remain unchecked, the
legislative power of conducting inquiries in aid of legislation would
be subject to abuse and would not serve legislative ends.

9. Given the novelty of the issues raised in this Petition and

the pervading effects of Respondent's acts in abusing the power to
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation as an avenue to air out his
personal hostilities and personal biases, Petitioners respectfully
proposes that this Petition must be referred to the Supreme Court En
Banc.

THE PARTIES

10. Petitioner JOSE C. CALIDA (hereinafter referred to as

"Petitioner Solicitor General"), is a Filipino citizen, of legal age. I--Ie is
the incumbent Solicitor General of the Republic of the Philippines. 1--Ie
currently holds ninety thousand (90,000) shares of Vigilant. He was
the Chairman and President of Vigilant until his resignation effective
on 30 June 2016. 6 He received a letter from Respondent dated 1
August 2018, inviting him to appear at a public hearing/ inquiry for
the specific purpose of "threshing out the various issues arising
from" Proposed Resolution No. 760.

11. Petitioner MILAGROS 0. CALIDA is a Filipino citizen,

of legal age, and the wife of Petitioner Solicitor General. She is the
current Chairperson and President of Vigilant, which was awarded
security service contracts through public bidding that are the object
of Respondent's allegations about conflict of interest. She now holds

6 A machine copy of Petitioner Solicitor General's letter to the Securities and

Exchange Commission is attached hereto as Annex "A".

4
twenty nine thousand nine hundred ninety eight (29,998) shares of
stock in Vigilant, after she initially acquired one thousand five
hundred (1,500) of its shares in 2004. She received a letter from
Respondent dated 1 August 2018, inviting her to appear at a public
hearing/ inquiry for the specific purpose of "threshing out the
various issues arising from" Proposed Resolution No. 760.

12. Petitioner JOSEF CALIDA is a Filipino citizen, of legal

age, and a son of Petitioner Solicitor General. I-le is the current Vice-
President and Corporate Secretary of Vigilant. In 2004, he acquired
one thousand five hundred (1,500) shares of Vigilant. He now holds
fifteen thousand (15,000) shares of Vigilant. He received a letter from
Respondent dated 1 August 2018, inviting him to appear at a public
hearing/ inquiry for the specific purpose of "threshing out the
various issues arising from" Proposed Resolution No. 760.

13. Petitioner MICHELLE CALIDA is a Filipino citizen, of

legal age, and a daughter of Petitioner Solicitor General. She is the
current Treasurer of Vigilant. In 2011, she acquired one thousand five
hundred (1,500) shares of Vigilant. She now holds fifteen thousand
(15,000) shares of Vigiliant. She received a letter from Respondent
dated 1 August 2018 inviting her to appear at a public
hearing/ inquiry for the specific purpose of "threshing out the
various issues arising from" Proposed Resolution No. 760.

14. Petitioner MARK JOREL CALIDA is a Filipino citizen, of

legal age, and a son of Petitioner Solicitor General. I--Ie is no longer a
Board member, officer, and stockholder of Vigilant as of 30 May 2018.
He received a letter from Respondent dated 1 August 2018 inviting
him to appear at a public hearing/ inquiry for the specific purpose of
"threshing out the various issues arising from" Proposed Resolution
No. 760.

Petitioners MILAGROS 0. CALIDA, JOSEF CALIDA,

MICHELLE CALIDA, and MARK JOREL CALIDA shall hereinafter
be collectively referred to as "Petitioners Family Members").

Collectively, Petitioners JOSE C. CALIDA, MILAGROS 0.

CALIDA, JOSEF CALIDA, MICHELLE CALIDA, AND MARK
JOREL CALIDA shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Petitioners".

15. Respondent SENATOR ANTONIO "SONNY" F.

TRILLANES IV (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") is a Filipino

5
citizen and of legal age. He is a Senator of the Republic of the
Philippines and the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Civil
Service, Government Reorganization and Professional Regulation. I-le
is impleaded as Respondent in this Petition because he issued the
Letters dated 1 August 2018 inviting Petitioners to an inquiry, which
he intends to conduct for the purpose of "threshing out the various
issues arising from" Proposed Resolution No. 760. The Letters dated 1
August 2018 were all issued from the "Office of Senator Antonio
'Sonny' F. Trillanes IV".

STATEMENT OF FACTS

16. On 30 May 2018, Senators Risa 1-Iontiveros, Franklin M.

Drilon, Paolo Benigno "Barn" Aquino, Francis N. Pangilinan, Antonio
"Sonny" F. Trillanes IV, and Leila M. De Lima introduced Proposed
Resolution No. 760 7, which allegedly seeks to conduct an inquiry in
aid of legislation on the alleged conflict of interest of Petitioner
Solicitor General arising from the security service contracts between
several national government agencies and Vigilant. The Proposed
Resolution states:

"PROPOSED SENATE RESOLUTION (SRN) No. 760 -

RESOLUTION URGING THE SENATE COMMITTEE
ON CIVIL SERVICE AND GOVERNMENT
REORGANIZATION TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN
AID OF LEGISLATION ON TI-IE CONFLICT OF
INTEREST OF SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE CALIDA,
ARISING FROM SECURITY SERVICE CONTRACTS
BETWEEN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
AND VIGILANT INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY
AGENCY, INC. which was introduced by Senators Risa
I-Iontiveros, Franklin M. Drilon, Paolo Benigno Barn
Aquino, Francis N. Pangilinan, Antonio "Sonny" F.
Trillanes IV, and Leila M. De Lima."

17. To date, Proposed Resolution No. 760 is still pending at

the Senate and/ or Committee on Civil Service and Government
Reorganization and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to
as the "Committee" or "Committee on Civil Service and Government
Reorganization and Professional Regulation"). To Petitioners'

7 A machine copy of Proposed Resolution No. 760 is attached hereto as

Annex "B".

6
knowledge, Proposed Resolution No. 760 is still referred to as a
proposed resolution because the proposal to conduct an inquiry on
the alleged conflict of interest of Petitioner Solicitor General has not
been approved as of the filing of this Petition.

18. Respondent issued separate letters, all dated 1 August

2018, (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Letters dated 1
August 2018" or "August 1 Invitations") to each Petitioner wherein
he states that he shall be conducting an alleged public hearing or
inquiry, on his own, with respect to Proposed Resolution No. 760.
The original of the Letter served upon Solicitor General Calida is
attached hereto as Annex "C". Petitioners Family Members only
received facsimile copies of the Letters separately addressed to
Milagros 0. Calida, Josef Calida, Michelle Calida, and Mark Jorel
Calida which are attached hereto as Annexes "D", "E", "F", and "G",
respectively. The Letters dated 1August2018 uniformly state:

"This is to inform you that as Chairman of the Committee on

Civil Service, Government Reorganization and Professional
Regulation, this representation will be conducting a
Public Hearing/Inquiry on August 14, 2018, Tuesday,
1:00 PM xxx to discuss Proposed Senate Resolution on:

PROPOSED SENATE RESOLUTION (SRN) No. 760 -

RESOLUTION URGING THE SENATE COMMITTEE
ON CIVIL SERVICE AND GOVERNMENT
REORGANIZATION TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN
AID OF LEGISLATION ON TI-IE CONFLICT OF
INTEREST OF SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE CALIDA,
ARISING FROM SECURITY SERVICE CONTRACTS
BETWEEN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
AND VIGILANT INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY
AGENCY, INC. (Senators I-Iontiveros, Drilon, Aquino,
Pangilinan, Trillanes IV, and De Lima)

In this connection, you are hereby invited to appear

before this Committee Inquiry for the purpose of
threshing out the various issues arising therefrom."
(Emphasis supplied and underscoring supplied)

19. Based on Petitioners' inquiries through counsel, there is

no evidence that the Senate has acted, approved, or denied Proposed
Resolution No. 760 as of the date of this Petition.

7
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

20. Petitioners submit that the relevant issues are as follows:

I. Whether Respondent has any authority

to conduct the intended inquiry on 16
August 2018 even in the absence of a
resolution by the Senate or any of its
Committees approving the Proposed
Resolution directing the conduct of an
inquiry in aid of legislation; Whether the
invitations embodied in the Letters dated 1
August 2018 are void and produce no legal
effect;

II. Whether the Committee on Civil

Service, Government Reorganization and
Professional Regulation exercises
jurisdiction to investigate specific conflicts
of interests of certain individual government
officials;

III. Whether the proposed inquiry to be

conducted by Respondent exceeds the
bounds of a valid legislative inquiry because
it is not carried out in aid of legislation;

IV. Whether the Respondent's intended

inquiry has pre-determined that there exists
a conflict of interest on the part of Petitioner
Solicitor General and whether that
predetermination precludes Respondent's
impartiality or a good faith legislative intent;

V. Whether this Court should take

judicial notice of the public reports about
the Respondent's acts that tend to establish
that he is motivated by his political biases
and personal hostility against Petitioner
Solicitor General and President Rodrigo
Duterte; Whether the challenged invitation
is issued only to exact suffering on
Petitioners as an indirect attack against the

8
 Solicitor General and the President of the
Republic of the Philippines; and

VI. Whether the acts taken by Respondent

subsequent to 1 August 2018, such as the
introduction of Senate Bill No. 1924 and
Proposed Resolution No. 828 on 8 August
2018, validate the invitations embodied in
the Letters dated 1 August 2018.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

I. RESPONDENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO

CONDUCT THE INTENDED INQUIRY ON 16
AUGUST 2018. NEITHER THE SENATE NOR ANY
OF ITS COMMITTEES HAS APPROVED THE
PROPOSED RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE
CONDUCT OF AN INQUIRY IN AID OF
LEGISLATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE INVITATIONS
EMBODIED IN THE LETTERS DATED 1 AUGUST
2018 ARE VOID AND PRODUCE NO LEGAL EFFECT.

21. Respondent decided on his own to conduct an inquiry

inviting Petitioners, as witnesses, on Proposed Resolution No. 760.
The Letters dated 1 August 2018 inviting Petitioners were signed by
Respondent, and specifically came from the 'Office of Senator
Antonio "Sonny" F. Trillanes IV.' These Letters were not issued by the
Committee.

22. The Letters were issued by Respondent even if the

Proposed Resolution to conduct an investigation or inquiry has not
yet been approved.

23. The Letters dated 1 August 2018 state:

"This is to inform you that as Chairman of the

Committee on Civil Service, Government
Reorganization and Professional Regulation, this
representation will be conducting a Public
Hearingllnquiry x x x to discuss Proposed Senate
Resolution on:

9
 x x x" (Underscoring supplied)

24. While Petitioners recognize that the Senate Committees

are authorized in general to conduct inquiries, Petitioners assert that
Respondent has no legal authority to order the conduct of the
legislative inquiry on his own.

25. The text of the Letters clearly state that only Respondent
issued the August 1 Invitations and will conduct the 16 August 2018
investigation.

26. Proposed Resolution No. 760, as its title suggests, is a

"Proposed Senate Resolution" introduced by six (6) Senators. Its
purpose to conduct the intended inquiry is subject to the approval of
the Senate. I-Iowever, as of 1 August 2018, it has not been approved
by the Senate as a body, nor by any of its Committee.

27. While it remains a mere proposed resolution before the

Senate or the Committee, Respondent has no authority to conduct an
inquiry on his own or to invite Petitioners to an inquiry in aid of
legislation.

28. Nevertheless, Respondent, without authority from either

the Senate or the Committee, invited Petitioners to his intended
inquiry so that Respondent's "representation" can conduct the
investigation.

29. In view of the foregoing, the invitations embodied in the

Letters dated 1 August 2018 are void for being issued without legal
authority, and therefore, produce no legal effects.

II. THE
COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE,
GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION AND
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION HAS NO
JURISDICTION TO INVESTIGATE SPECIFIC
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OVER CERTAIN
INDIVIDUAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

30. Petitioners respectfully assert that the Committee on Civil

Service, Government Reorganization and Professional Regulation
does not have jurisdiction over the intended inquiry.

10
 31. The Committee is one of the permanent committees of the
Senate composed of seven (7) members of which Respondent is the
Chairman. The jurisdiction of the Committee is described as follows:

"All matters relating to the Civil Service and the status of

officers and employees of the Government including their
appointment, discipline, retirement; their compensation
privileges, benefits and incentives; implementation of the
constitutional provisions on the rights of government
workers to form and join labor organizations; public
sector labor management relations and collective
negotiation agreements; the regulation of and admission
to and the practice of the professions; and, reorganization
of the Government or any of its branches or
instrumentalities; all human resource development
programs pertaining to the Government; and all other
matters relating to the bureaucracy." 8

32. On its face, the jurisdiction of the Committee mainly

consists of matters relating to rules and policies of civil service and
the status of officers and employees of Government as these apply or
are applicable to all employees.

33. The Committee has no jurisdiction to investigate the

accountability of public officers. That jurisdiction has been reserved
by the Senate for the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers,
otherwise known as the Blue Ribbon Committee.

34. The Blue Ribbon Committee has jurisdiction over:

"All matters relating to, including investigation of,

malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance in office by
officers and employees of the government, its branches,
agencies, subdivisions and instrumentalities;
implementation of the provision of the Constitution on
nepotism; and investigation of any matter of public
interest on its own initiative or brought to its attention by
any member of the Senate."9

8 Section 13(31), Rule X of the Rules of the Senate.

9 Section 13(37), Rule X of the Rules of the Senate.

11
 35. Although the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee 1s
authorized to investigate matters involving the accountability of
public officers, with a view to legilsation, this does not mean that the
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee can investigate specific public
officers with a prosecutorial intent, view or outlook.

36. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee may conduct

legislative inquiries, provided that there exists a legislative agenda to
such inquiry.

37. In Bengzon, the Supreme Court enjoined the Senate Blue

Ribbon Committee from compelling persons to testify because the
Court found that the inquiry was carried out only to determine
whether the witnesses had violated a law, specifically Section 5, R.A.
No. 3019.

38. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is also bound by the

same restrictions in the conduct of legislative inquiries as any other
Committee of the Senate.

39. The only difference is that the Senate Blue Ribbon

Committee's mandate is to focus on legislation needed to address
accountability of public officers in general, and not on actual or
possible violations done by specific performance.

40. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is not allowed to measure

up a person for conflict of interest using a standard that differes from
exsiting laws and jurisprudence. Thus, the Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee is also not allowed to conjure up an assessment of
Petitioner Solicitor General that departs from the tests laid down in
R.A. No. 6713 and Rabe.Otherwise, the Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee would be committing grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

41. Moreover, an investigation for the purpose of obtaining

evidence against Petitioners will necessarily violate their rights to
due process of law because the rules on taking and use of evidence
for prosecution are not applied in senate proceedings.

42. Clearly, the explicit and sole intent of the intended

inquiry is to establish evidence on the alleged conflict of interest of
Petitioner Solicitor General.

12
 43. The Respondent has no legal authority to conduct
investigations about the accountability of specific public officers with
a prosecutrial outlook. No Senate Committee possesses that authority
to conduct such an investigation because that would not be in the
nature of a legislative inquiry.

44. Accordingly, the intended inquiry, even if it were to be

theoretically conceded to be authorized by the Committee, is illegal
because the Proposed Resolution has not been approved by the
Senate or any of its Committees, and because the subject of the
inquiry falls outside the jursidiction of the Committee on Civil
Service, Government Reorganization and Professional Regulation.

III. THE PROPOSED INQUIRY TO BE CONDUCTED

BY RESPONDENT EXCEEDS THE BOUNDS OF A
VALID LEGISLATIVE INQUIRY BECAUSE IT IS NOT
CARRIED OUT IN AID OF LEGISLATION.

45. Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution grants the

Senate or the I-louse of Representatives, or any of its respective
committees, the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation:

"Section 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives

or any of its respective committee may conduct inquiries
in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published
rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or
affected by such inquiries shall be respected."

46. For the protection of witnesses, Section 21 explicitly sets

the limitations on the power of legislative investigation, as follows:

46.1 The legislative inquiry must be in aid of legislation;

46.2 The legislative inquiry must be in accordance with the

duly published rules of procedure; and

46.3 The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such

inquiries shall be respected.10

10 Bernas, S.J., Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2003 Edition,

page 737.

13
 47. As will be discussed below, the proposed legislative
inquiry violates all of the limitations of a valid legislative inquiry as
mentioned above, and is, therefore, void.

The proposed Committee inquiry

has no legislative purpose.

48. This Honorable Court recognized in the landmark

decision of Bengzon, Jr. vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee 11 (" Bengzon")
that the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is
not absolute:

"Thus, Section 21, Article VI [of the 1987 Constitution]

provides: x x x

The power of both houses of Congress to conduct

inquiries in aid of legislation is not, therefore, absolute
or unlimited. Its exercise is circumscribed by the afore-
quoted provision of the Constitution. Thus, as provided
therein, the investigation must be 'in aid of legislation in
accordance with its duly published rules of procedure'
and that 'the rights of persons appearing in or affected
by such inquiries shall be respected.' It follows then that
the rights of persons under the Bill of Rights must be
respected, including the right to due process and the right
not to be compelled to testify against one's self."
(Emphasis supplied)

49. In Bengzon, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile delivered a

privilege speech alleging that one Ricardo Lapa took over various
government owned corporations with the help of Bengzon Law
Office, in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Sen.
Emile called upon the Senate to look into the possible violation of the
law in the case, in the following tenor:

"Mr. President, it may be worthwhile for the Senate to

look into the possible violation of the law in the case
particularly with regard to Republic Act No. 3019, the

11 G.R. No. 89914, 20November1991.

14
 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Section 5 of which
reads as follows and I quote:
xxx

Mr. President, I have done duty to this Senate and to

myself. I leave it to this august Body to make its own
conclusion."

50. A motion to investigate the matter was referred to the

Committee on Accountability of Public Officers (Blue Ribbon
Committee). Ricardo Lopa and Atty. Jose Bengzon, Jr. declined to
testify on the ground that their testimonies might unduly prejudice
the defendants in a civil case then pending at the Sandiganbayan.

51. In ruling that the legislative inquiry is not in aid of

legislation, the Supreme Court held:

"Verily, the speech of Senator Enrile contained no

suggestion of contemplated legislation; he merely called
upon the Senate to look into a possible violation of Sec.
5 of RA No. 3019, otherwise known as 'The Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act.' In other words, the purpose
of the inquiry to be conducted by respondent Blue
Ribbon committee was to find out whether or not the
relatives of President Aquino, particularly Mr. Ricardo
Lopa, had violated the law in connection with the alleged
sale of the 36 or 39 corporations belonging to Benjamin
'Kokoy' Romualdez to the Lapa Group. There appears to
be, therefore, no intended legislation involved.

xxx

It appears, therefore, that the contemplated inquiry by

respondent Committee is not really 'in aid of
legislation' because it is not related to a purpose within
the jurisdiction of Congress, since the aim of the
investigation is to find out whether or not the relatives of
the President or Mr. Ricardo Lapa had violated Section 5
RA No. 3019, the 'Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act', a
matter that appears more within the province of the
courts rather than of the legislature. x x x " (Emphasis
supplied)

15
 52. Similarly, as will be discussed further in this Petition,
Proposed Resolution No. 760 shows no legitimate legislative purpose.
Respondent's inquiry is actually intended to produce evidence on its
conclusion that a conflict of interest on the part of Petitioner Solicitor
General exists. Nothing in the Proposed Resolution relates to an
intent to adopt generally applicable legislation about the Civil
Service.

Nothing in the text of Proposed

Resolution No. 760 reveals that
the intended inquiry is to be
conducted in aid of legislation.

53. Respondent's Letters dated 1 August 2018 state that the

hearing was scheduled in order to discuss the issues arising from
Proposed Resolution No. 760. The Letters dated 1 August 2018
uniformly state:

"x x x this representation will be conducting a Public

Hearing/ inquiry x x x to discuss Proposed Resolution
on:

PROPOSED SENATE RESOLUTION (SRN) 760

RESOLUTION URGING THE SENATE COMMITTEE xx
x

In this connection, you are hereby invited to appear before

this Committee Inquiry for the specific purpose of
threshing out the various issues arising therefrom."

54. While the Letters dated 1 August 2018 state an agenda to

discuss the issues arising from the Proposed Resolution, the
Proposed Resolution itself does not leave any room for discussion
except possibly to determine the gravity of Petitioner Solicitor
General's predetermined conflict of interst. The Proposed Resolution
actually puts forward the hard conclusion or premise that the
Petitioner Solicitor General has a conflict of interest. As such, the
Proposed Resolution leaves no room for any issue left to be
discussed.

55. A plain reading of Proposed Resolution No. 760 clearly

shows that there is no basis for Respondent to conduct the intended
inquiry. Nothing therein contemplates the express desire or necessity
by the Committee to change, alter, or amend existing laws, or for the

16
creation of new legislation, of which a legislative inquiry must be
conducted upon the Petitioners. There is nothing stated in any of the
Whereas clauses of Proposed Resolution No. 760 that suggests a
legislative agenda.

56. All that the Proposed Resolution seeks is to urge the

Committee to conduct the intended inquiry on the alleged "conflict of
interest" of Petitioner Solicitor General arising from security service
contracts between government agencies and Vigilant.

57. The text of the Proposed Resolution reveals that the

Senators who introduced Proposed Resolution No. 760 have already
predetermined that a conflict of interest situation exists. As such, the
object of the Letters dated 1 August 2018 is not even to discover
whether a conflict of interest exists. The object is to find ways to
humiliate Petitioner Solicitor General and Petitioners Family
Members for having the alleged conflict of interest.

58. Clearly, the objective of the Proposed Resolution is to

conduct an inquiry in order to humiliate and carry out the personal
and hostile agenda of the Respondent.

59. Consequently, the intended inquiry does not serve any

legislative purpose, and is, therefore, void.

The purpose of the proposed

inquiry is to exercise functions
that properly fall within the
Executive department.

60. Stripped to its core, the intention of the Respondent is to

obtain evidence, investigate offenses or violations allegedly
committed by Petitioner Solicitor General or the Petitioners Family
Members, and humiliate them, all in the guise of an invocation of
legislative power.

61. However, the power to conduct legislative inquiries,

though broad, does not include the power to encroach upon the
functions properly falling within the Executive branch of
government.

17
 62. In Bengzon, the Supreme Court observed that a civil
complaint, which the Blue Ribbon Committee sought to investigate
was pending at the Sandiganbayan. The Court ruled that the issue in
the said complaint was already acquired by the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.

63. The Supreme Court further clarified in Bengzon the

restrictions on legislative inquiries, thus:

"But broad as is this power of inquiry, it is not

unlimited. There is no general authority to expose the
private affairs of individuals without justification in
terms of the functions of congress. This was freely
conceded by Solicitor General in his argument in this
case. Nor is the Congress a law enforcement or trial
agency. These are functions of the executive and
judicial departments of government. No inquiry is an
end in itself; it must be related to and in furtherance of
a legitimate task of Congress. Investigations conducted
solely for the personal aggrandizement of the
investigators or to 'punish' those investigated are
indefensible." (Emphasis supplied)

64. Thus, Respondent cannot act like a law enforcement

agency by investigating Petitioners with a view to determine the
extent of Petitioner Solicitor General's predetermined liability for
conflict of interest. That action would be a usurpation of the functions
of the executive department, done in plain sight.

65. If the intended 16 August 2018 inquiry were to be

conducted, Respondent would violate the separation of powers
between the legislative and executive branches of government
because he will exercise executive prosecutorial powers. The
intended inquiry is, therefore, also void because it encroaches upon
powers of the executive or judiciary.

The Proposed Resolution violates

the Constitutional rights of the
Petitioners.

66. The third limitation under Section 21, Article VI of the

Constitution on the legislative's power to conduct inquiries in aid of

18
legislation is that rights of persons appearing in or affected by such
inquiries shall be respected. 12

67. There is no indication that there is anything useful

intended to be discovered from Petitioners during the investigation
because Respondent is well aware that Petitioner Solicitor General
has resigned from Vigilant on 30 May 2016, prior to his appointment
on 1 July 2016. The resignation of Petitioner Solicitor General as
President and Chairman of Vigilant is a matter of public record
which was reported widely in the news and media channels.13

68. Petitioners also assert that the invitations in the Letters

dated 1 August 2018 violate their constitutional right to the equal
protection of the laws.

69. Petitioners Family Members submit that the Proposed

Resolution and the intended inquiry selectively target them as
violators or enablers of violations of law, by merely being subject to
unverified reports of conflict of interest violations, or through mere
affinity or association with Petitioner Solicitor General. There is no
relevant fact that is left to be discovered from any of the Petitioners
Family Members because Petitioner Solicitor General's ownership of
shares of stock in Vigilant, before and after his assumption of public
office, are public knowledge, having been reported to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

70. There are no acts or ommissions attributable to the

Petitioners that can possibly shed light on the Proposed Resolution
because:

70.1 A conclusion about the existence of a conflict of interest

has already been made such that Petitioners would not
need to provide clarificatory assistance on the acts of
Petitioner Solicitor General; moreover, Petitioner
Milagros Calida, being the wife of Petitioner Solicitor
General, is protected by the marital privilege rule from
testifying on the acts of her husband.

12 Bernas, S.J ., Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2003 Edition,

page 737.
13 http:/ /news.abs-cbn.com/news/05/26/18/no-conflict-of-interest-in-
government-deal-with-calida-security-firm-osg

19
 70.2 With regard to Petitioner Solicitor General, his acquisition
of shares of stock in Vigilant, and his resignation on 30
May 2018 based on his report to the Securities and
Exchange Commission apprising it his resignation14, are
matters of public record, as are the contracts of Vigilant.

70.3 With respect to Petitioners Family Members, no acts or

omissions have actually been attributed to any of them as
of this date, or are attributable to them, which make out a
conflict of interest. Being private parties, they are not
governed by R.A. No. 6713.

71. The singling out of Petitioners by Respondent in the

invitations reveals a motive to humiliate Petitioners.

72. Petitioners Family Members are private citizens. They are

not government officials. They are not subject to R.A. No. 6713. In
fact, no act or omission has even been attributed to them that would
amount to a conflict of interest on their part.

73. Had Respondent intended to conduct an investigation in

earnest on conflict of interest, he should have also invited other
persons who were, or are, public officials who enjoyed contracts with
the government. Such other persons could perhaps include former
President Benigno Aquino Ill, who was also widely reported to have
been involved in the security agency business when his mother was
President of the Philippines 15. The invitation to former President
Benigno Aquino III would demonstrate a good faith purpose to
inquire into conflicts of interest in general and would avoid a biased
specific inquiry on Petitioner Solicitor General and his family
members.

74. Clearly, Respondent does not have legislation in mind

because legislation does not unreasonably single out particular
persons and violate the equal protection clause. Otherwise stated,
Respondent only invited Petitioner Solicitor General and Petitioners
Family Members. He did not invite any other government official

14 See Annex A.
1s https:/ /propinoy.net/2010/04/14/np-noynoy-broke-the-law-during-
cory' s-term-securi ty-agency-bagged-gov' t-contracts / and
https://www.pinoyexchange.com/ discussion/ 436170 / noynoy-and-bsa

20
subject of unverified reports on conflict of interest violations, and/ or
their family members to his investigation.

IV. THE RESPONDENT'S INTENDED INQUIRY

HAS PRE-DETERMINED THAT THERE EXISTS A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON THE PART OF
SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE CALIDA AND THAT
HE VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION AND R.A. No.
6713. THAT PREDETERMINATION PRECLUDES
RESPONDENT'S IMPARTIALITY OR A GOOD FAITH
LEGISLATIVE INTENT.

75. Under Section 1, Rule IX of the Rules Implementing

Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees, a conflict of interest arises when:
(1) a public official or employee is a member of a board, an officer, or
a substantial stockholder of a private corporation, or owner or has a
substantial interest in a business, and (2) the faithful performance of
the official duty of that public official or employee may oppose or
affect the interest of such corporation or business, or his rights or
duties thereunder.

76. Under Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713, it is provided that

public officials and employees shall not, directly or indirectly, have
any financial or material interest in any transaction requiring the
approval of their office. Also, public officials and employees during
their incumbency shall not own, control, manage or accept
employment as officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent,
trustee or nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or
licensed by their office unless expressly allowed by law.

77. In Rabe vs. Flores (" Rabe"), 16 respondent Delsa M. Flores,

Interpreter III of RTC, Branch IV, Panabo, Davao, took advantage of
her position as a court employee by claiming a stall at the public
market when she is not among those awarded the market's stalls by
the court in a civil case. She did not disclose nor divulge in her
Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth ("SALN") her
business interest in said stall. Such failure of respondent to disclose
her business interest, which she herself admitted, is inexcusable and
is a clear violation of Republic Act No. 6713. But on the issue of the
existence of conflict of interest, the Supreme Court explained as
follows:

16 G.R. No. 183591, 14 October 2008.

21
 "In the present case, it seems a bit far-fetched to imagine
that there is a conflict of interest because an Interpreter III
of the Regional Trial Court has a stall in the market. A
court, generally, is not engaged in the regulation of a
public market, nor does it concern itself with the activities
thereof."

78. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as a

government agency, is not involved in the approval of the contracts
between Vigilant and its clients. Those contracts were all obtained
through public bidding in accordance with law. Neither is the OSG
involved in the business of licensing, regulating or supervising
security agencies such as Vigilant.

79. Based on the standard set in Rabe, no conflict of interest

arises from the security service contracts between the national
government agencies and Vigilant.

80. Thus, the Proposed Resolution is borne from the false

premise that a conflict of interest exists even if the application of
existing legal standards or tests to Vigilant do not lead to the same
conclusion.

81. Department of the Interior and Local Government

Opinion No. 17, Series of 2005 ("2005 DILG Opinion") is also
instructive about the current state of understanding of what
constitutes a conflict of interest. 2005 DILG Opinion has been
consistently relied and reiterated in DILG Opinion No. 26, Series of
2013, and DILG Opinion No. 30, Series of 2013 ("2013 DILG
Opinion") .17

82. In the 2013 DILG Opinion, the issue was that an elected
mayor did not divest her shares in a private corporation, despite
regularly issuing mayor's/business permit to operate to the private
corporation. The DILG concluded that the issuance of a mayor's
permit is not a transaction wherein rights or duties therein may be
opposed to or affected by the faithful performance of official duty.
2013 DILG Opinion provides in part:

"While it is true that the City Mayor issues licenses and

permits and has the power to revoke the same for any

17 A copy of the DILG Opinion dated 14 October 2013 is attached hereto as

Annex "H".

22
 violations upon which said licenses or permits have been
issued pursuant to law or ordinance, the issuance thereof
depends on whether or not all the requirements are met,
the approval thereof by the mayor becomes purely
ministerial, not discretionary. The power to issue Mayor's
Permit/License is an administrative function of the
Mayor attached to the office and not a business contract
or transactions. The fact, therefore, that the City Mayor is
also the issuing authority of the Mayor' sf business permit
is merely incidental."

83. The DILG opined that the divestment of

shareholdings/interest referred to in Section 9 of R.A. No. 6713 is
only proper in case a conflict of interest exists. It does not arise if only
a potential conflict of interest exists.

84. Similarly, in the absence of a conflict of interest on the

part of herein Petitioner Solicitor General, the latter is not required to
divest his shareholdings/interest in Vigilant as required under R.A.
No. 6713.

85. Moreover, the determination on the existence of a conflict

of interest is a power that falls within the executive and judicial
departments. The Senate is not the proper arbiter that determines its
existence.

86. The invitations, borne out of a false premise about conflict

of interest, are void, not only because these are motivated by a
legislative purpose, but also because these are motivated by a desire
to exercise the investigative prerogative of the executive department.

87. While Rabe exists as part of the law of the land, and
Congress has not legislated a new definition of conflict of interest,
there is no valid legislative purpose for investigating Petitioner
Solicitor General and Petitioners Family Members because no conflict
of interest is attributable to them under Rabe, the current test for
determining the existence of a conflict of interest.

88. Indeed, Petitioners' guarantees to due process of law are

fundamentally violated if they are subjected to a conflict of interest
test that deviates from Rabe or R.A. No. 6713.

89. Thus, the intended inquiry is void, or at least unduly

oppressive, because it is intended to prosecute an alleged conflict of

23
interest that does not meet the test laid down in Rabe. As the
investigation intends to divert from established jurisprudence and
the standards set in R.A. No. 6713, the intended investigation is a
grave abuse of discretion of the investigative power of the legislative
by a single senator. As Respondent has exercised and intends to
continue to exercise by himself and on his own volition the powers
reserved for the Senate, Respondent is acting with grave abuse of
discretion.

There are no real facts to be

ascertained in the proposed
inquiry because R.A. No. 6713
only requires either divestment or
resignation. The aim of
Respondent in the intended
inquiry is to look into possible
violations of law or charges of
wrongdoing against Petitioner
Solicitor General or Petitioners
Family Members, with a view to
determining liability or
accountability.

90. Under Section 2, Rule IX of the Rules Implementing R.A.

No. 6713, when a conflict of interest arises, the public official or
employee involved shall resign from his position in any private
business enterprise within thirty (30) days from his assumption of
office andfor divest himself of his share-holdings interest within sixty
(60) days from such assumption.

91. Although no conflict of interest situation exists or existed,

Petitioner Solicitor General, nevertheless, resigned from Vigilant
when he assumed public office.

92. Because Petitioner Solicitor General opted to resign in

accordance with Section 2, Rule IX of the Rules Implementing R.A.
No. 6713, he need not divest anymore. As held in Rabe, "in the
absence of any showing that a business interest will result in a
conflict of interest, divestment of the same is unnecessary."

93. The power of legislative inquiry must be used only to

implement a clear and precise legislative purpose. The determination
of liability or accountability of certain government officials or private

24
persons is a matter within the province of the prosecution agencies in
the executive branch and, ultimately, of the courts.

94. The intended 16 August 2018 inquiry by a sole Senator,

even if it were theoretically conceded as valid, is improper because it
is not germane to a legislative purpose. Ostensibly, it is intended to
investigate only Petitioner Solicitor General. In reality, however, it is
a means to:

94.1 Take the opportunity to attack, bully, ridicule and

humiliate Petitioners along with the Solicitor General;
and

94.2 Indirectly attack President Duterte, with whom

Respondent has carried out a long-standing dispute about
illegal wealth and criminal acts.

95. There is actually no point to subject Petitioners Family

Members to the coercive process of an inquiry about conflict of
interest because they are not government employees or officials
bound by the provisions of R.A. 6713. Neither are they alleged to
have commited any unlawful act or omission that contravenes R.A.
No. 6713 or have knowledge of facts that are not already publicly
reported. In fact, Petitioners Family Members' shareholdings in
Vigilant were acquired even prior to Petitioner Solicitor General's
assumption in office.

V. THE SUPREME COURT MAY TAKE JUDICIAL

NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC REPORTS ABOUT THE
RESPONDENT'S ACTS THAT TEND TO EST AB LISH
THAT HE IS MOTIVATED BY HIS POLITICAL BIASES
AND PERSONAL HOSTILITY AGAINST PETITIONER
SOLICITOR GENERAL AND PRESIDENT RODRIGO
DUTERTE. THUS, THE CHALLENGED INVITATION
IS ISSUED ONLY TO EXACT SUFFERING ON THE
PETITIONERS AS AN INDIRECT ATTACK AGAINST
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND THE PRESIDENT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

96. Respondent is notorious for criticizing the person or

persona of President Rodrigo Duterte. The same also applies to
Petitioner Solicitor General.

25
 97. On numerous occasions, Respondent has shown political
and personal hostility against Petitioner Solicitor General, as seen in
many news articles and uploaded videos circulated online, some of
which are as follows:

97.1 In a news article dated 15 February 2018, Petitioner

Solicitor General, in an interview after the Senate hearing
into the bills stengthening the OSG, said the following:
"Nandyan ba si Senator Trillanes?", "Sabi niya nagpa-panic
daw aka; sino nagpa-panic? Siya ang nag-papanic", to which
Respondent retorted:

"Sabi niya kasi paalis na siya diba? Kung sana sinabi niya
nung hearing edi sana binabaan ko siya kahit na may
importante aka na mga ginagaiva. I believe it's a total waste of
time dealing with people like Calida kasi parang bumababa
'yung pagkatao mo eh when you deal with them," he said in a
separate interview.ls

The two engaged in a word war after Petitioner Solicitor

General bared that the Office of Ombudsman had already
"closed and terminated" the Senator's plunder complaint
against President Duterte. 19

97.2 A news article dated 30 May 2018 stated that Senator

Trillanes slammed Petitioner Solicitor General's
continued stay in office, amid calls for his resignation.

"Sa akin ganito Zang, pakapalan na Zang ng mukha ito. Nakita

nyo naman si Calida hindi naman iba sa kanya 'yun," he
commented.

"Sa ngayon ang kapal ng mukha eh. Andiyan pa rin,"

Trillanes said.

"Kung si Teo nag resign, eh lalo na sya [referring to the case

of former Tourism Secretary Wanda Teo]. Di hamak na mas

1s Link to the uploaded video:

https:/ / www.youtube.com/ watch?v=fH3KP8p38LA
19 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/969080/ calida-hits-back-at-trillanes-over-
duterte-wealth-whos-panicking

26
 malaking halaga ang involved dito. So nabisto na, kailangang
mag resign na," he said.20

98. Respondent has criticized Petitioner Solicitor General

while in the exercise of his official duties and functions. Some of the
criticisms were reported as follows:

98.1 In a news article dated 4 April 2018, Senators Trillanes

and Leila De Lima commented on Petitioner Solicitor
General's petition for quo warranto against Chief Justice
Maria Lourdes Sereno.

They described the ouster petition a "patent transgression

of the Constitution," and the Supreme Court should not
be a party to it, the two opposition senators said.

De Lima and Trillanes filed a motion for intervention,

with a prayer to dismiss in their capacity as duly-elected
senators of the 17th Congress. They said that Calida's
petition "is a proceeding whose aim is to deprive the
Senate of its jurisdiction as the impeachment tribunal."

They argued: "The design of the Constitution is precisely

to remove from the executive and judicial departments of
government the matter of ousting impeachable public
officials."21

99. There are also several instances wherein Respondent

verbalized his opposition against President Rodrigo Duterte, whether
directly or indirectly. Some of these instances are as follows:

99.1 In a news article dated 4 June 2018, Senator Trillanes was

sought for comment on President Rodrigo Duterte' s order
to replace Celestina Ma. Jude Dela Serna as interim chief
of the PhilHealth, to which Trillanes commented:

"Si (Solicitor General Jose) Calida kailan ?"

20 Link to the uploaded video:

https:/ /www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH_cAmDoc-Y
21 https:/ /www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/04/04/1802778/ de-lima-
trillanes-seek-dismissal-ouster-petition-vs-sereno

27
 "Kapag hindi dikit sa kanya, tanggal agad. Si Calida na mas
malaki ang halaga ng corruption, ayaw niya tanggalin kasi
maraming alam na sikreto," he said in a text message to
GMA News Online.22

99.2 In a news article dated 1 March 2017, it was reported that

Petitioner Solicitor General is preparing to file charges
against Senator Trillanes for allegedly "coddling"
members of the Davao Death Squad. Trillanes said the
following to Senate reporters:23

"They can threaten me all they want but I will continue to

fulfill my mandate to expose the truth about President Duterte
and stand up against the blatant misuse and abuse of power by
his administration. So, Mr. Calida, shut up and just do it. "24

99.3 In a news article dated 6 June 2017, it was reported that

Senator Trillanes and Magdalo party-list Representative
Gary Alejano filed a supplemental communication titled
"DIGONG, TI-IE GRAVE DIGGER: A look into the
Philippine President's War on Drugs" at the International
Criminal Court.

In the communication, Trillanes and Alejano urged the

international tribunal to conduct a preliminary
examination on their allegations against President
Duterte. The communication stated:

"We are hereby submitting to you the attached

supplemental communication to the aforementioned
Communication, for the purpose of affirming the veracity
of the information contained therein and to provide
additional information to prove the widespread and
systematic extrajudicial killings in our beloved country." 25

22 http://www.gmanetwork.com/ news/ news/ nation/ 655643 / si-calida-

kailan-trillanes-asks-after-d u terte-axes-p hilhealth-chief /story/
23 http:/ /www.panaynews.net/trillanes-twits-solgen-shut-up-file-raps-vs-
me/
24 https:/ /www.hatawtabloid.com/2017 /03/01/hindi-ako-takot-sa-banta-
ni-calida-trillanes /
2s https: / / www. p hils tar .com/ headlines/ 2017 / 06/06/1707311 / trillanes-
alejano-urge-icc-look-allegations-vs-d u terte

28
 100. The language used by Respondent, as reported in the
press and media and as listed above, betrays not only opposed
political views. Respondent's language betrays a personal hostility
and bias.

101. Even without authority from the Senate or the

Committee, Respondent overzealously scheduled a public hearing or
inquiry, inviting herein Petitioners. This overzealousness is solid
evidence of Respondent's embedded malicious intent.

102. Thus, the August 1 Invitations served on Petitioners, even

if they have not committed any act or omission relative to the alleged
conflict of interest, is plainly a means to carry out a personal and
hostile attack on Petitioners, or against Petitioner Solicitor General or
President Duterte, indirectly.

103. At the risk of appearing redundant, Petitioners

respectfully submit that the August 1 Invitations are motivated by a
personal agenda to attack, and not to carry out legislative duties.

104. The invitation should therefore be declared void and

restrained for failing to meet a legislative purpose.

EVENTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF

LETTERS DATED 1AUGUST2018.

VI. THE ACTS TAKEN BY RESPONDENT

SUBSEQUENT TO 1 AUGUST 2018, SUCH AS THE
INTRODUCTION OF SENATE BILL No. 1924 AND
PROPOSED RESOLUTION No. 828 DO NOT
VALIDATE THE INVITATIONS IN THE LETTERS
DATED 1AUGUST2018.

105. Perhaps after Respondent caught wind of questions

raised by Petitioners' counsel at the Senate staff or offices,
Respondent initiated corrective action.

106. On 8 August 2018, Respondent introduced Senate Bill No.

1924 (SBN 1924) - An Act Amending Section 3 (1) of Republic Act.

29
No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees (hereinafter referred to as "Senate Bill No.
1924")26. The amendment sought by Senate Bill No. 1924 is indicated
below by the addition of the underscored phrase:

"SECTION 1. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6713 (RA

6713) is hereby amended to read as follows:

'Section 3: Definition of Terms - As used in this Act,

the term:
(i) "Conflict of interest" arises when a public official or
employee is a member of a board, an officer, or a
substantial stockholder of a private corporation or
owner or has a substantial interest in a business,
and the interest of such corporation or business, or
his rights or duties therein, may be opposed to or
affected by the faithful performance of official duty.
EXERTING UNDUE INFLUENCE IN
GOVERNMENT DEALINGS FOR ONE'S
BENEFIT OR PERSONAL GAIN IS ALSO
CONSIDERED CONFLICT OF
INTEREST." (Underscoring supplied.)

107. On even date, Respondent also introduced Proposed

Senate Resolution No. 828 (P.S.R. No. 828), which reads as follows:

"RESOLUTION DIRECTING TI-IE SENATE COMMITTEE ON

CIVIL SERVICE, GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION AND
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION TO CONDUCT AN
INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, TO CLARIFY TI-IE
CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROVISION OF REPUBLIC ACT.
NO. 6713 OR TI-IE CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL
STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES
DUE TO REPORTS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS EXERTING
UNDUE INFLUENCE TO SECURE GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTS." (hereinafter referred to as "Proposed
Resolution No. 828").27

108. Senate Bill No. 1924 is entitled as" AN ACT AMENDING

SECTION 3(I) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO 6712 OR THE CODE OF
CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS

26 A machine copy of Senate Bill No. 1924 is attached hereto as Annex "I".
27 A machine copy of Proposed Resolution No. 828 is attached hereto as
Annex "J".

30
AND EMPLOYEES". The explanatory note of the Senate Bill No. 1924
states in part:

"xx this proposed measure seeks to expand the definition

of conflict of interest to include the exertion of undue
influence by a public official or employee in pursuing
government dealings for the purpose of personal gain
or benefit." (Underscoring supplied)

109. Thus, Senate Bill No. 1924 proposes to expand the

meaning or definition of conflict of interest, likely after a belated
recognition that no conflict of interest exists or may arise with regard
to Petitioner Solicitor General and Vigilant, under existing law or
jurisprudence.

110. Proposed Resolution No. 828, which has not been

approved either, proposes to direct the Committee to conduct an
inquiry, "in aid of legislation", to clarify the conflict of interest
provision of Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees due to alleged
reports of public officials exerting undue influence to secure
government contracts. As Proposed Resolution No. 828 has not been
approved, it should not produce any legal effect.

111. Senate Bill No. 1924 and Proposed Resolution No. 828 do
not change the legal character of the invitations embodied in the
Letters dated 1 August 2018.

112. The Letters dated 1 August 2018 have not been

withdrawn, modified, or changed. The Letters dated 1 August 2018
still stand as personal invitations issued by the Respondent and not
by the Committee to appear on 16 August 2018 because Respondent
wants to conduct an investigation as Chairman of the Committee on
Civil Service, Government Reorganization and Professional
Regulation.

113. Proposed Resolution No. 828 and Senate Bill No. 1924 do
not cure the invalidity of the invitations in the Letters dated 1 August
2018.

114. The Letters dated 1 August 2018 are still void because
these were issued by Respondent who has no authority from the
Senate or the Committee to conduct an investigation and because the

31
scope and intent of the intended inquiry is illegally constituted and
serves no legislative purpose.

115. Thus, Proposed Resolution No. 828 and Senate Bill No.
1924 do not validate the Letters dated 1 August 2018 because the
Letters are void and may not be cured. Corollary, the intended 16
August 2018 investigation is devoid of legal authority.

APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR WRIT OF PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

116. Petitioners incorporate all the foregoing material

averments by way of reference.

117. Respondent intends to conduct the inquiry on 16 August

2018 on his own and without legal authority from either the Senate or
the Committee. I-Iis acts amount to grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

118. Part of the reliefs that Petitioners are entitled to consist in

enjoining and restraining Respondent from conducting his intended
investigation or inquiry on 16 August 2018 and other rescheduling or
transfers of date of the said investigation or inquiries.

119. Respondent must be restrained, by way of provisional

reliefs, from conducting the said inquiry on 16 August 2018.

120. Petitioners will suffer grave injustice and irreparable

injury if Respondent will not be restrained from conducting the
inquiry on 16 August 2018. They will be subjected to an illegal
inquiry by a sole Senator who has not obtained the authority of the
Senate or a Committee to conduct an investigation or inquiry.
Petitioners will thus suffer the irreparable injury of being humiliated
by the respondent for no legal or valid purpose.

121. The intended inquiry will also incur the use of public
funds for an illegal purpose. It is an unauthorized inquiry and
motivated by an illegal purpose. On this ground alone, the court may

32
restrain the intended inquiry scheduled on 16 August 2018 or on any
other date that the intended inquiry may be transferred to.

122. The conduct of Respondent's intended inquiry will result

in an unjustified invasion of Petitioners' private affairs. Respondent
will intrude into questions that fall outside of a defined subject
matter and delve into extraneous issues. Petitioners will thereby be
unduly and irreparably prejudiced, along with Vigilant, which has
carried out legitimate operation since 2001.

123. Moreover, the likelihood of Respondent extracting

evidence to be used against Petitioners is high and would result in
the infringement of Petitioners' Constitutional rights against self-
incrimination and to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

124. There is extreme urgency and necessity for injunctive

relief in Petitioners' favor because the scheduled inquiry is set on 16
August 2018, or three (3) days from the date of this Petition.

125. Therefore, Petitioners respectfully request this Court to

issue a Temporary Restraining Order and/ or a Permanent Injunction to
enjoin Respondent from conducting the intended legislative inquiry.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in the interest of substantial justice, Petitioners

respectfully pray for this I-Ionorable Court to:

1. ISSUE a Temporary Restraining Order restraining, enjoining,

and prohibiting Respondent, or any person acting in his behalf,
from:

a. Conducting the intended legislative inquiry

on 16 August 2018 and on such other dates
that the inquiries may be transferred or
rescheduled to; and

b. Initiating or conducting any other inquiry

against Petitioners on his own or otherwise

33
 without legal authority from the Senate and
law.

2. After further hearings, DECLARE AS VOID and

UNCONSTITUTIONAL the Letters dated 1 August 2018
because these were issued in Respondent's sole capacity only or
without the authority of the Senate or any of its Committees
and for serving no legislative purpose.

3. To DECLARE AS VOID the intended inquiry on 16 August

2018 for the following reasons:

a. The intended inquiry is void and unduly

oppressive because it is intended to prosecute
an alleged conflict of interest that does not
meet the test laid down in Rabe.

b. The intended inquiry is intended to divert

from the standards set in R.A. No. 6713, and
to carry out a prosecutorial investigation.

c. The intended inquiry will incur the use of

public funds for an illegal or unauthorized
misappropriation.

d. The intended inquiry does not exhibit an

intent to investigate in aid of legislation or
other legislative inent.

4. Petitioners also pray for this Court to PERMANENTLY

PROHIBIT Respondent from:

a. Conducting the intended legislative inquiry on

16 August 2018 and on such other dates that
the inquiries may be transferred or
rescheduled to;

b. Initiating or conducting any inquiry against

Petitioners on his own and without legal
authority from the Senate and law.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are

likewise prayed for.

34
 Respectfully submitted. Makati City for the City of Manila, 13
August 2018.

BERNAS LAW OFFICES

Counsel for Petitioners Solicitor General Jose C. Calida,
Milagros 0. Calida, Josef Calida,
Michelle Calida, and Mark Jorel Calida
8th Floor, Raha Sulayman Building,
108 Benavidez Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City
Telephone Number: (+632) 8927470
E-mail: bernaslaw@gmail.com

By:

Jos,A. BERNAS
IBP Lifetime Membership No. 1738 / 25 January 2000 / Makati City
PTR No. 6614726 / 0 January 2018 / Makati City
MCLE Compliance No. V - 0015489 - 10 March 2016
Roll of Attorneys No. 36090

'I
ANA A~ E. SOMERA
IBP Membership No. 020928/04 January 2018/Makati City
PTR No. 6614735 / 03 January 2018/ Makati City
MCLE Not Yet Required
Roll of Attorneys No. 69352

ICHAEL l}NGELO ESCUDERO

IBP Membership No. 042286/23 May 2018/ Makati City
PTR No. 6896283 / 06 June 2018/ Makati City
MCLE Not Yet Required
Roll of AttorneY,s No. 71069

INEA.ABES
IBP Membership N . 42103/15 May 2018/ PPLM
PTR No. 689631 '/ 08 June 2018/ Makati City
MC Not Yet Required
Roll f Attorneys No. 71690

35
 COPY FURNISHED

OFFICE OF SENATOR ANTONIO "SONNY" F. TRILLANES IV

Respondent fY/ak.alJ' ~ p. l)
Rm. 519 & 15 (New Wing 5/F) GSIS Bldg., c:2,t)/ g
Financial Center, Diokno Blvd., Pasay City ~ · I~ 1
1/: O/t./-3 ~__g

EXPLANATION AS TO SERVICE AND FILING OF PLEADING

In accordance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Civil

Procedure, a copy of this pleading was served upon the foregoing
party by means of registered mail with return card, instead of by
personal delivery, on account of the distance between the
undersigned counsel's office and that of the foregoing party, and for
lack of material time to effect personal service.

36
 JOINT VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, JOSE C. CALIDA, Filipino, all of legal age, with address at No.

15 Venus St. Bricktown Subd. Paranaque City, Metro Manila, hereby
depose and state under oath that:

1. I am one of the Petitioners in the above-mentioned case.

2. I, together with other Petitioners, have caused the

preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition.

3. I have read the contents of the said Petition and the

allegations therein are true and correct of my personal knowledge
and/ or based on authentic records.

4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding

involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial
agency, and to the best of my knowledge, no such other action or
proceeding is pending.

5. Should I hereafter learn that such a similar action or

proceeding has so been filed or pending before any court, tribunal, or
quasi-judicial agency, I hereby undertake to report the same to this
Court within five (5) days from knowledge theFeof.

SUBSCRIBED AND $WORN TO BEFORE ME this ~ffv day of

August 2018. Affiant exhibited to me as competent proof of identity
the following:

NAME PROOF OF IDENTITY

JOSE C. CALIDA orr ~JI) °l -\-Yr~ ~\;CA+. ( ~\Ile~ I

!~r~?\ 01-e.e 10 No . ~rto ~ ~

Doc No. -J->[;

Page No.~
CHARLES f~CANGCHON
Commission No. M-378
/
Notary Public - City of Makati
Until 31 December 2019
Book No.~ Bernas Law Offices
Series of 2018. 31h Floor Raha Sulayman Bldg., 108 Benavidez St.,
Legaspi Village, Makati City
IBP Membership No. 020927 / 04 January 2018 / RSM
PTR No. 6614734 / 03 January 2018 / Makati City
Roll of Attorneys No. 70008
 JOINT VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

We, MILAGROS 0. CALIDA, JOSEF CALIDA, MICHELLE CALIDA, and

MARK JOREL CALIDA, Filipinos, all of legal age, with address at 15 Venus
Street Bricktown Village Moonwalk Parafiaque City hereby depose and
state under oath that:

1. We are the Petitioners in the above-mentioned case.

2. We have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing

Petition.

3. We have read the contents of the said Petition and the

allegations therein are true and correct of our personal knowledge and/ or
based on authentic records.

4. We have not commenced any other action or proceeding

involving the saine issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency,
and to the best of our knowledge, no such other action or proceeding is
pending.

5. Should we hereafter learn that such a similar action or

proceeding has so been filed or pending before any court, tribunal, or
quasi-judicial agency, we hereby undertake to report the same to this
Court within five (5) days from knowledge thereof.

~ ~;W o. ~tit;0
ILAGRO~O. CALIDA
~
<fl\ioUd ~effJJ'lb,(
MICHELLE CALIDA
--

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this ~ day of

August 2018. Affiants exhibited to me as competent proof of identity the
following:

NAME PROOF OF IDENTITY

MILAGROS 0. CALIDA
JOSEF CALIDA
MICHELLE CALIDA
I MARK JO REL CALIDA Ii~\.<.v!+-c,l \'?<iv<TJ~ ·fL:i f ~..;'~ (,wd P-;pJ-1 'l AW~> \\0 • 1114 '!)-:+

Doc No. :n~; CHARLES FlfA'NCIS F. DECANGCHON

PageNo._1~ Commission No. M-378
Notary Public - City of Makati
BookNo.L Until 31 December 2019
Bernas Law Offices
Series of 2018. gth Floor Raha Sulayman Bldg .. 108 Benavidez SL,
Legaspi Village, Makati City
IBP Membership No. 020927 / 04 January 2018 / RSM
PTR No. 6614734 j 03 january.20~8./~Makati City
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
MAKATI CITY

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, ROMMEL R. DUMANACAL, as office messenger of BERNAS LAW

OFFICES, with office address al 8th Floor Raha Sulayman Building, 108
Benavidez Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City, after having duly sworn in
accordance with law, hereby depose and state that;

On ~gurJ lL\ JD i~, I served a copy of the following pleading/paper:

NATURE OF PLEADING/PAPER
1-'ei'\t'•D.'\ f:0'f Ce.r~"Jf•Jfi (•fl.\
}/r(:,}\:t;,f.01" vi•th ur,9c.,,\- f..ppi·<-0'\-;or\ i::o,. \<.{i\>G•0\1.,(0 Of'.
·-10·•"1·' 0 rv-.-y ' 1 ..rJc~1'-v.1:'J'-. lr,_Jvu'<.. t U.l.fl
R"-lifY>:.0i:~---L~,,,~~L--~-(u.c-:r_rJ

In ______ --------------------- entitled J._C_aLd.:.c.e.J ~L.vs. .....Lz.run:t~-1!.~\l°'n&.s Iv.

Pursuant Lo Sections 3, 4, 5 and 10 Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, as follows:

By Personal Service to:

By delivery personally a copy to the party or

---------------------
his / her attorney on ________ _ __ page.

By leaving a copy in his / her clerk of with a

person
Having charge thereof on ____ _
As shown on p.___ _
By Registered Mail to:
\\ l/
1. Oi·t:,-,,. C!f i,_~-\_v.,,,. C.vr•oy :}: !r,11<,,,,g 1'I
By depositing a copy on __Ait\.§.~_4 .J.i.J 1 I:!.
2.
3. in the post: office at SM!frll 'ift:!f_~(J·~-' as
4. evidenced by Registry Reccipt(s) No.(s) C>llJ,;i83
5. here to attached and indicated after the
6. namc(s) of the adclrcssee(s) with instruction
7. to postmaster to return the mail to sender
after ten ( 10) days if undelivered.

---4:~~---
Makati City: Au,':f.;.,;Lil::L.::~.(,!_Lll_

SUBSCJ~IBED AND SWORN to before me in Makati City this,

A;11gud affiant exhibiting to me his Social Security System (SSS)
ILJ ,2,018
Identification Card No. 3~-3059126-_7, which is a government--issuecl
identification card bearing the affiant's name, photograph, and signature.

Doc. No. _J:lu\

-'ft- FRA~~·:.-~ECANGCHON
Page No.
Book No. CHARLES
Series of 2018. Commission No. M-378
Notary Public - City of Makati
Until 31 December 2019
Bernas Law Offices
gthFloor Raha Sulayman Bldg., 108 Benavidez St.,
Legaspi Village, Makati City
IBP Membership No. 020927 / 04 January 2018 / RSM
PTR No. 661-1734 / 03 January 2018 / Makati City
Roll of Attorneys No. 70008