Arnault v Nazareno Petition for habeas corpus to relieve petitioner Jean Arnault from confinement in the New Bilibid

prison. Denied Facts: In the latter part of October, 1949, the Philippine Government, through the Rural Progress Administration, bought two estates known as Buenavista and Tambobong for the sums of P4,500,000 and P500,000, respectively. P1,000,000 was paid for the first sum and P 500,000 to the second sum both to Ernest H. Burt, a nonresident American, thru his two attorney-in-fact in the Philippines, as represented by Jean L. Arnault, for both estates respectively. However, Ernest H. Burt was not the original owner of the estate. He bought the first from San Juan de Dios hospital and the second from the Philippine trust company. In both instances, Burt was not able to pay the necessary amount of money to complete his payments. As such, his contract with said owners were cancelled. On September 4, 1947, the Philippine Trust Company sold, conveyed, and delivered the Tambobong Estate to the Rural Progress Administration by an abolute deed of sale in consideration of the sum of P750,000. The Philippine Government then, through the Secretary of Justice as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Rural Progress Administration and as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Philippine National Bank, from which the money was borrowed, accomplished the purchase of the two estates in the latter part of October, 1949, as stated at the outset. On February 27, 1950, the Senate adopted its Resolution No. 8, which created a special committee to investigate the transactions surrounding the estates. The special committee created by the resolution called and examined various witnesses, among the most important of whom was Jean L. Arnault. An intriguing question which the committee sought to resolve was the apparent unnecessariness and irregularity of the Government's paying to Burt the total sum of P1,500,000 for his alleged interest of only P20,000 in the two estates, which he seemed to have forfeited anyway long before October, 1949. The committee sought to determine who were responsible for and who benefited from the transaction at the expense of the Government. Arnault testified that two checks payable to Burt aggregating P1,500,000 were delivered to him on the afternoon of October 29, 1949; that on the same date he opened a new account in the name of Ernest H. Burt with the Philippine National Bank in which he deposited the two checks aggregating P1,500,000; and that on the same occasion he drew on said account two checks; one for P500,000, which he transferred to the account of the Associated Agencies, Inc., with the Philippine National Bank, and another for P440,000 payable to cash, which he himself cashed. It was the desire of the committee to determine the ultimate recipient of this sum of P440,000 that gave rise to the present case. As Arnault resisted to name the recipient of the money, the senate then approved a resolution that cited him for contempt. It is this resolution which brought him to jail and is being contested in this petition. Issue: 1. WON the Senate has the power to punish Arnault for contempt for refusing to reveal the name of the person to whom he gave the P440,000.

2. WON the Senate lacks authority to commit him for contempt for a term beyond its period of legislative session, which ended on May 18, 1950. 3. WON the privilege against self incrimination protects the petitioner from being questioned. HELD: 1. YES. Once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the jurisdiction of a legislative body to make, the investigating committee has the power to require a witness to answer any question pertinent to that inquiry, subject of course to his constitutional right against self-incrimination. The inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the legislative body to make, must be material or necessary to the exercise of a power in it vested by the Constitution, such as to legislate, or to expel a Member; and every question which the investigator is empowered to coerce a witness to answer must be material or pertinent to the subject of the inquiry or investigation. The materiality of the question must be determined by its direct relation to the subject of the inquiry and not by its indirect relation to any proposed or possible legislation. The reason is, that the necessity or lack of necessity for legislative action and the form and character of the action itself are determined by the sum total of the information to be gathered as a result of the investigation, and not by a fraction of such information elicited from a single question. 2. NO Senate is a continuing body and which does not cease to exist upon the periodical dissolution of the Congress or of the House of Representatives. There is no limit as to time to the Senate's power to punish for contempt in cases where that power may constitutionally be exerted as in the present case. Senate will not be disposed to exert the power beyond its proper bounds, i.e. abuse their power and keep the witness in prison for life. If proper limitations are disregarded, Court isalways open to those whose rights might thus be transgressed. 3. NO Court is satisfied that those answers of the witness to the important question, which is the name of that person to whom witness gave the P440,000, were obviously false. His insistent claim before the bar of the Senate that if he should reveal the name he would incriminate himself, necessarily implied that he knew the name. Moreover, it is unbelievable that he gave P440,000 to a person to him unknown. "Testimony which is obviously false or evasive is equivalent to a refusal to testify and is punishable as contempt, assuming that a refusal to testify would be so punishable." Since according to the witness himself the transaction was legal, and that he gave the P440,000 to a representative of Burt in compliance with the latter's verbal instruction, Court found no basis upon which to sustain his claim that to reveal the name of that person might incriminate him. Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk ARNAULT V. NAZARENO

This is a petition for habeas corpus to relieve Arnault from confinement at Bilibid

He was confined by Senate for his refusal to name the person to whom he gave P440,000, and to answer some questions. The Philippine Government bought 2 estates (BUENAVISTA & TAMBOBONG) worth P5M total. P1Mwas paid to Burt thru atty-in-fact Arnault, P500K also paid to Burt, thru Arnault (total P1.5M) However, the Original owner of the Estate was San Juan De Dios Hospital under a contract with the government for 25 years lease. SJDDH sold it to Burt but Burt paid only the P10K down payment. However the estates could have been bought for only P3M, and the Tambobong Estate should have been free, because it was practically owned by the govt! (when the installments were not paid, it was sold to Rural Progress Admin. SENATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION # 8 creating a special committee to investigate the estate deals. Among the witnesses examined was Arnault why did govt have to pay P1.5M to Burt when his interest was only P20K, which was forfeited anyway? Arnault testified that he received the checks and opened an account in the name of his principal Burt to deposit the P1.5M. He later withdrew them P500K for Assoc Agencies, and P440K payable to cash. THIS P440K was the subject of investigation, to determine who the ultimate recipient was. Arnault stated that he gave the P440K to some person, but whose NAME HE CANT REMEMBER. Because of his persistent refusal to name the recipient, the Senate cited Arnault for CONTEMPT and thus he was confined Arnault however claims that the questions asked of him were incriminatory. He contends that the Senate has no power to punish him for contempt for refusing to reveal the name of the beneficiary, because such information is immaterial and will not serve any intended or purported legislation, and that his refusal to answer does not obstruct the legislative process.

Legislature cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information about the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change. When legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information, recourse must be had to others who do possess it. So the means of COMPULSION is essential to obtain what is needed. The fact that the Consti expressly gives Congress the power to punish members, does not necessarily imply exclusion of the power to punish non-members for contempt. But note that, no person can be punished for contumacy as a witness, unless testimony required in a matter over which Congress had jurisdiction to inquire. Further, the Court has NO POWER TO INTERFERE WITH LEGISLATIVE ACTION. It has no power to determine what to approve or not to approve, the court cannot say what information is material to the subject matter of inquiry. It is not within the Courts power to determine what legislative measures Congress may take after completion of legislative inquiry. Senate is also a continuing body; NO TIME LIMIT AS TO ITS POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT

ISSUE: Whether the Senate has the power to cite Arnault for contempt? SC: Yes. Once inquiry admitted or established to be within the jurisdiction of a legislative body to make, then the investigating committee has the POWER TO REQUIRE A WITNESS to answer any question pertinent to that inquiry, subject to the consti right against selfincrimination. Howevre, the question must be MATERIAL OR PERTINENT O THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION. The test of materiality is: direct relation to the subject matter of inquiry and not by indirect relation to any proposed or possible legislation. RATIONALE: necessity of legislative action determined by the information gathered as a whole. The power of inquiry is an ESSENTIAL AND APPROPRIATE AUXILIARY to the legislative function.