INVESTIGATORY POWERS

INVESTIGATORY POWER a. power to carry out a systematic POWERS OF GRANT OF INVESTIGATORY POWER
(Inquisitorial Power) or formal inquiry; INFORMATION CHR Sec. 18, Art. 13, 1897
b. on violation of laws; GATHERING Constitution – “To
c. and to gather information on NBI investigate, on its own, or
proposed legislations. on complaint by any
JUDICIAL FUNCTION a. power to adjudicate; party, all forms of human
b. upon rights and obligations of rights violations involving
parties. civil and political rights.”
JUDICIAL DISCRETION a. power to evaluate evidence
submitted to it; Sec. 1, RA 157 – “To
b. on the facts and circumstances undertake investigation
presented. of crimes and other
offenses against the laws
TEST OF JUDICIAL FUNCTION a. not the exercise of judicial
of the Philippines, upon
discretion;
its initiative and as public
b. but the power and authority to
interest may require.”
adjudicate;
c. upon rights and obligations of PROSECUTION Public Prosecutor Sec. 13, Art. 11, 1987
parties before it. PURPOSES Constitution – to
Ombudsman investigate on its own, or
on complaint by any
INVESTIGATORY POWER
person, any act of
omission of any public
Principle no. 1  to investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge.
official, employee, office
or agency, when such act
CASE: CARINO V CHR
or omission appears to
204 SCRA 483
be illegal, unjust,
improper or inefficient.”
Facts:
MPSTA and ACT members – on Sept. 17, 1990, undertook “mass concerned actions” AID TO OTHER SEC Sec. 5 (a), Securities
to “dramatize” their plight for failure of authorities to act upon their grievances. POWERS Regulation Code (RA
8799) – “Have jurisdiction
Sec. Isidro Carino – issued return to work order in 24 hours to striking teachers or face and supervision over all
dismissal. For failure to heed the order, teachers were charged, preventively corporations,
suspended for 90 days, and temporarily replaced. partnerships or
associations who are the
Teachers – complained to CHR that they were replaced without notice and for no grantees of primary
reasons. Cariño moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. CHR denied the motion franchises and/or license
and ruled that there had been violation of the teachers’ civil and political rights, which or permit issued by the
CHR was employed to investigate. Cariño moved to elevate the case to SC. government.”

HELD: Sec. 5 (d), Securities

a. The only thing CHR can do, if it concludes that Sec. Cariño was in error, is Regulation Code (RA
refer matter to appropriate government agency or tribunal for assistance, 8799) – “Regulate,
that would be CSC. It cannot arrogate unto itself the appellate jurisdiction of investigate or supervise
CSC. the activities of the
b. The most that may be conceded to CHR is that it may investigate, i.e., persons to ensure
receive evidence and make findings of the fact as regards claimed human compliance.”
rights violations involving civil and political rights.
SCOPE AND EXTENT OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS
SCOPE EXTENT ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
1. INITIATION OF On complaint or own VILLALUZ V ZALDIVAR
INVESTIGATION motion – power of control of
(examine, explore, President may extend to
inquire) power to investigate, to
suspend or to remove
officers and employees
who belong to executive
department (presidential
appointees).
2. CONDUCT OF May be held in private RUIZ V DRILON –
INVESTIGATION respondent in admin
(audit, physical cases is not entitled to be
investigation, monitor) informed of the findings
and recommendations of
investigating committee.
SEC. OF JUSTICE V
LANTION – due process
rights of notice and
hearing may be invoked
at evaluation stage of
extradition proceedings.
PEFIANCO V MORAL –
respondent in admin
case is not entitled to be
informed of the findings
and recommendations of
investigating committee.
3. INSPECTION AND No search warrant CAMARA V MUNICIPAL
EXAMINATION required. COURT – there was no
(routine inspection for emergency demanding
enforcement of Conduct inspection immediate access. Yet
regulations) during reasonable hours. no warrant was obtained.
SALAZAR V
ACHACOSO – Art. 38,
LC, which grants Sec of
Labor authority to issue
orders of arrest, search
and seizure, is
unconstitutional, because
secretary is not a judge.
4. ACCOUNTS, Access to documents of CATURA v CIR –
RECORDS, REPORTS person being Documents required to
or STATEMENTS investigated. be produced constitutes
of most solid character
as to whether or not
there was failure to
comply with mandates of
law.
5. ATTENDANCE OF No inherent power to: EVANGELISTA v
WITNESSES JARENCIO – subpoena
a. require is within legal
attendance; competence of PAGRO
b. put under oath; to issue pursuant to EO
require to 4(5) which empowered it
testify to “summon witness...
relevant to investigation.”
6. HEARING May be held but not OFFICE COURT
necessary part of ADMINISTRATOR v
investigation CANQUE – admin due
process cannot be fully
equated with due
process in its strict
judicial sense. A formal
or trial-type hearing is
required.
7. CONTEMPT Requisites: CARMELO v RAMOS –
PROCEEDINGS one who invokes Sec.
(failing to appear or 1. Statutory grant; 580, RAC, must first
refusing to produce 2. Performing show he has “authority to
documents) quasi-judicial take testimony or
function evidence” before he can
apply to courts for
punishment of hostile
witnesses.
MASANGCAY v
COMELEC – When
Comelec exercises
ministerial function it
cannot exercise the
power to punish
contempt because such
power is inherently
judicial in nature.
BEDOL v COMELEC – to
withhold from Comelec
the power of contempt
would render nugatory its
investigative power ,
which is an essential
incident to its mandate to
secure honest and
credible elections.
8. RULES OF Admin agency is given GAOIRAN v ALCALA – b.He is entitled only to an admin decision that is based on substantial
PROCEDURE and wide latitude in admin proceedings, evidence and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges made
EVIDENCE technical rules on against him and the evidence presented against him during the hearings
procedure and evidence of the investigating committees.
are not strictly applied PEFIANCO v MORAL

I. INITIATION OF INVESTIGATION Facts:

Principle Admin agency or official may initiate Maria Luis Moral (Chief Librarian, National Library) – was charged with dishonesty,
investigation on a complaint or on its grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
own motion.
VILLALUZ v ZALDIVAR Moral – filed Petition for Production of Investigation Committee Report purportedly
to guide her on whatever action to take. Her petition was denied. She filed for
Facts: mandamus. RTC denied motion to dismiss filed by Gloria. On appeal, CA,
Ruben Villaluz – was appointed Administrator of Motor Vehicles Office (MVO). sustained RTC. Gloria went to SC.
HELD:
Cong. Joaquin Roces (Chairman of the Committee on Good Government) – a. A respondent in admin case is not entitled to be informed of the findings
informed the President about the findings of his Committee concerning alleged and recommendations of any investigating committee created to inquire
gross mismanagement and inefficiency committed by Villaluz in MVO. Cong. into charges filed against him.
Roces recommended the replacement of Villaluz. b. He is only entitled to the decision based on substantial evidence and a
reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and evidence presented
President – dismissed Villaluz, after the investigating committee created thereby against her during the hearings of the investigating committee.
submitted its report.
2. CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATION
Villaluz – claims that the admin proceedings conducted against him are illegal Principle # 2: due process rights of notice and hearing may be invoked at
since there was no previous verified complaint against him. evaluation stage of extradition proceedings.
SEC. OF JUSTICE v LANTION
HELD:
a. The Chief Exec, as admin head of Villaluz, is empowered to commence admin Facts:
proceedings motu propio, without need of any previous verified complaint. Sec. Franklin Drilon – formed a panel to evaluate the request for extradition by the
US government of Mark Jimenez, who is wanted in the US for various crimes.
2. CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATION
Principle no. 1 Respondent in admin case is not Jimenez – pending evaluation, requested for copies of extradition request and
entitled to be informed of the findings documents submitted.
and recommendations of investigating
committee. Drilon – denied the requests on the ground that, inter alia, that it’s premature to
RUIZ v DRILON furnish Jimenez documents.

Facts:
Dr. Eliseo Ruiz – was ordered dismissed by Pres. Corazon Aquino for dishonesty
and grave misconduct as president of Central Luzon State University (CLSU). ES
Franklin Drilon denied Ruiz’s MR.
Ruiz – filed petition for prohibition w CA, which issued TRO. After 8 days, Ruiz filed
w SC pet for annulment of AO 218 as well as of orders of Drilon denying his MR.
CA dismissed the petition as forum shopping. Thus, Ruiz went to SC alleging that
he was not informed of the findings of the investigation conducted against him.
HELD:
a. Ruiz is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations
of investigating committee created into charges filed against him.
Judge Ralph Lantion – upon pet of Jimenez directed DOJ to maintain status quo.
Drilon went to SC.
HELD:
a. one will search in vain the RP-US Extradition Treaty, the Extradition Law
(PD 1069), as well as American jurisprudence and procedures in
extradition, for any prohibition against the confinement of two basic due
process rights of notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the
extradition proceedings.
b. Jimenez does not only face clear and present danger of loss of property
or employment, but of liberty as itself, which may eventually lead to his
forcible banishment to a foreign land.
3. INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION
Principle # 1: no search is required but inspection must be conducted during
reasonable hours.
CAMARA v MUNICIPAL COURT
Facts:
Camara – was a lessee of the ground floor of an apartment building.
San Francisco Health Department – received information that Camara, was using
the rear of his leasehold as residence. Claiming that the building’s occupancy
permit did not allow residential use of the ground floor, inspector of the Health
Department demanded that Camara permit an inspection of the premises.
Camara – refused to allow the inspection because the inspector lacked search
warrant.
HELD:
a. There was no emergency demanding immediate access; in fact, the
inspectors made three tips to the building in an attempt to obtain
Camara’s consent to the search.
b. Yet no warrant was obtained and thus Camara was unable to verify
either the need for or the appropriate limits if the inspection.
3. INSPECTION and EXAMINATION
Principle # 2: Probable cause must be determined personally by the judge.
SALAZAR v ACHACOSO
Facts:
Tomas Achacoso (POEA Administrator) – ordered the seizure of documents and
paraphernalia being used as means of committing illegal recruitment owned by
Hortencia Salazar.
Salazar – requested POEA that the personal properties seized be immediately
returned in the ground that said seizure violate Sec. 2, Art 3 of the Phil. Consti
which guarantees right of the people “to be secure in their perons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizure of whatever nature and for
any purpose.” Before POEA could act on the request, Salazar filed suit for
Prohibition with SC.
HELD:
a. The Sec. of Labor (or the POEA Administrator), not being a judge may
no longer issue search or arrest warrants.
b. Art. 38, par c of LC, empowering Labor Secretary to issue search and
arrest warrants in illegal recruitment cases is declared unconstitutional.
4. ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, REPORTS, or STATEMENTS
Principle: accounts, records, reports, or statements may be required to be
delivered and deposited with admin body at the hearing.
CATURA v CIR
Facts:
Pablo Catura and Luz Salvador – President and Treasurer, respectively, of Phil.
Virginia Tobacco Admin Employees Assoc (PVTAEA), were charged before the
CIR with “unauthorized disbursement of union funds.”
CIR – required Catura and Salvador to deliver and deposit all Assoc’s books of
accounts and other documents related to finances of the union.
Catura and Salvador – filed MR on the grund that the order was beyond the power
CIR to issue.
HELD:
a. All that the challenged order did was to require said union officers to
“deliver and deposit” with CIR all docs related to its finances at the
hearing.
b. The docs required to be purchased constitutes evidence of the most
solid character as to WON there was a failure to comply w the mandates
of the law.
5. ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES
Principles: it is common for statues to confer such powers on admin agencies.
EVANGELISTA v JARENCIO
Facts:
Presidential Agency on Reforms and Govt Operations (PARGO) – created through
EO 4, with power to investigate immoral practices, graft and corruptions, and to
investigate any public official or employee. Further, it is vested w power to summon
witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony or evidence relevant to its
investigation.
Uses. Quirico Evangelista – issued subpoena to Fernando Manalastas, Public
Sercice Officer of Manila.
Manalastas – instead of obeying subpoena, filed w CFI-Manila Pet for prohibition
contenting that Pargo’s subpoena power is exercisable when it is performing quasi-
judicial or adjudicatory function.
Judge Hilarion Jarencio – granted the Pet. Thus, Usec. Evangelista went to SC.
HELD:
a. The subpoena is well within the legal competence of PARGO to issue
pursuant to EO 4(5) which empowered it to “summon witness...relevant
to the investigation.”
b. Subpoena power operates in all functions of PARGO. It is not merely
exercisable in quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. To hold that
subpoena power of PARGO is confined to mere quasi-judicial or
adjudicatory functions would inactive the Agency in its investigatory
functions.
6. HEARING
Principles: in admin investigation, formal or trial-type hearing is not required.
OFFICE of COURT ADM. V CANQUE
Facts: Only power to investigate which does not imply delegation of power to take
Sylvia Canque (Clerk of Court of Cebu) – was arrested by NBI after an entrance testimony or evidence of witnesses whose appearance may be required by due
operation. SC treated the NBI entrapment as admin complaint for grave process of law
misconduct. Case was referred to OCA for investigation, report and
recommendation. SC, upon recommendation of OCA, reassigned case to RTC-
Cebu for investigation, report and recommendation. Contempt Proceedings
Principle No. 2 Effectiveness of quasi-judicial power
Investigating Judge – found Canque guilty of grave misconduct and recommended hinges on its authority to compel
penalty of dismissal. attendance of parties and compel
attendance of parties and their
OCA – recommended that Report of Investigating Judge be set aside and witnesses at hearings
complaint be reinvestigated upon finding that Canque was not informed of her right Bedol vs. COMELEC
to be heard by herself and counsel during the investigation which allegedly
amounted to denial of her right to due process. Facts:
HELD: Comelec task force – tasked to conduct factfinding investigation of allegation of
fraud and irregularities in the conduct of the May 24, 2007 elections in
a. The essence of due process is that a party be afforded reasonable Maguindanao
opportunity to be heard and to presented any evidence he may have in
support of his defense. Lintang Bedol (PES for Maguindanao) – refused to appear during hearing and to
b. Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied to answer questions before the task force. Was found guilty of contempt of the
admin proceedings. Thus, admin due process cannot be fully equated w Commission and meted 6 months imprisonment. He filed MR, which was denied.
due process it its strict judicial sense. A formal or trial-type hearing is not He elevated to the SC contending that COMELEC sitting as National Board of
required. Canvassers, was performing administrative not quasi-judicial functions. He argued
that the COMELEC, in that capacity, could not punish him for contempt
Contempt Proceedings Held:
Principle No. 1 Power to punish contempt must be
expressly granted to administrative Comelec through task force Maguindanao was exercising its quasi judicial power
body in pursuit of truth behind the allegations of massive fraud during the elections in
Carmelo v. Ramos Maguindanao

Facts: To withhold the power to punish individuals who refuse to appear during fact-
Jesus Carmelo – tasked by virtue of an EO issued by the Mayor of Manila to head finding investigation would render nugatory the COMELECS investigative power,
a committee to investigate anomalies involving certain personnel, issued which is an essential incident to its constitutional mandate to secure the conduct of
subpoenas to Armando Ramos, bookkeeper, to appear in connection with an honest and credible elections
administrative case but Ramos refused. Carmelo filed in CFI Manila a petition to
declare Ramos in contempt. CFI ruled that there is no law empowering Contempt Proceedings
committees created by municipal mayors to issue subpoenas and demand
witnesses to testify under oath Principle No. 2 When granted, the power to punish
contempt may be exercised only when
Carmelo – appealed to the SC invoking Sec. 580 RAC “when authority to take administrative body is performing
testimony or evidence is conferred upon, any.. committee… such authority shall.. quasi-judicial functions
comprehend the right to administer oaths and summons witnesses… Any one Masangkay vs. COMELEC
who, without lawful excuse, fails to appear upon summons… shall be subject to
discipline as in case of contempt of court…” Facts:
Held: Benjamin Masangkay (Provincial Treasurer of Aklan) –was charged before the
COMELEC with contempt for having opened 3 ballot boxes containing official and
One who invokes Sec. 580 must show he has authority to take testimony or sample ballots not in the presence of division superintendent of schools, provincial
evidence before he can apply to courts for punishment of hostile witness auditor and representatives of NP, LP and Citizen’s Party, as required in a
COMELEC Resolution
Nothing in the EO about such grant of power
Masangkay – elevated the case to SC contending that even if he can be held
guilty of contempt, the decision is null and void for lack of valid power on the part
of the Commission to impose such disciplinary penalty
Held:

When COMELEC exercises ministerial functions, it cannot exercise the power to

punish contempt because such power is inherently judicial in nature

The resolution which COMELEC tried to enforce and for whose violation the
charge for contempt was filed against Masangcay merely call for the exercise of
an administrative or ministerial function for they merely concern the procedure to
be followed in the distribution of ballots and other election paraphernalia among
the different municipalities.

Contempt Proceedings
Principle No. 2 When granted, the power to punish
contempt may be exercised only when
administrative body is performing
quasi-judicial functions
Goairan vs. Alcala

Facts:
Florian Gaoiran (Head Teacher, Angadanan Agro-Industrial College) was charged
by Edmon Castillejo (Administrative officer of the same school), before the CHED ,
for mauling him while he was performing his duties. Appended to the complaint
were verified criminal complaints filed by Castillejo and sworn statements of his
witnesses for assault to person in authority. Gaoiran was preventively suspended
for 90 days. He sought reconsideration contending that a complaint was not under
oath citing EO 292

Angel Alcala – dismissed Goairan from service, Gaoiran filed a petition with the
RTC, which ruled in his favor. On appeal, CA reversed RTC.
Held:

The verified complaint that Castillejo filed against Goairan, as well as the sworn
statements of his witnesses could very well be considered as constituting the
complaint against him

Government agency is given wide latitude in the scope of its exercise of its
investigative powers. After all, in administrative proceedings, technical rues of
procedure and evidence are not strictly applied