562 Phil. 557
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Petitioner PCGG opposed the motion on the ground, among others, that the description of the documents sought to be produced and inspected is vague.
- The documents, records and other evidence considered by the PCGG and on the basis of which the PCGG issued the Sequestration Order dated June 19, 1986 (Annex “A,” hereof) and the Writ of Sequestration dated June 19, 1986 (Annex “B,” hereof); and
- The minutes of the meeting(s) of the PCGG at which the Sequestration Order dated June 19, 1986 (Annex “A” hereof) and Writ of Sequestration dated June 19, 1986 (Annex “B” hereof) was authorized to be issued and which chronicles the discussion (if any) and the decision (of the PCGG Chairman and Commissioners) to issue the Sequestration Order dated June 19, 1986 (Annex “A,” hereof) and the Writ of Sequestration dated June 19, 1986 (Annex “B,” hereof).
In their comment on the petition, private respondents averred inter alia that they are unaware that petitioner and members of its staff are immune from the subpoena processes of the Sandiganbayan; that in PCGG v. Peña,[1] the Supreme Court ruled that Section 4(b), Executive Order No. 1 does not bestow on the PCGG or its staff any right or privilege superior to that of other government officials or place the PCGG or its staff on a plane higher than that of any other official of the Republic; and that the challenged subpoena is not unreasonable and oppressive since the documents sought are properly described and identified and material and relevant to the issues involved in Civil Case No. 0096.
- SECTION 4(b) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1 SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT NO MEMBER OR STAFF OF THE PCGG SHALL BE REQUIRED TO TESTIFY OR PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN ANY JUDICIAL, LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING MATTERS WITHIN ITS OFFICIAL COGNIZANCE. MS. LOURDES MAGNO, WHO IS A STAFF OF PETITIONER PCGG, CANNOT, THUS, BE COMPELLED BY A SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY IN CIVIL CASES NOS. 0096 TO 0099.
- PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ REQUEST FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBPOENA TO MS. MAGNO IS UNREASONABLE AND OPPRESSIVE, DESIGNED MERELY TO HARASS HEREIN PETITIONER.
Section 4. (a) No civil action shall lie against the commission or any member thereof for anything done or omitted in the discharge of the task contemplated by this order.In Sabio v. Gordon,[2] we held that Section 4(b) of Executive Order No. 1 was repealed by the 1987 Constitution, thus:
(b) No member or staff of the commission shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial, legislative or administrative proceedings concerning matters within its official cognizance.
A statute may be declared unconstitutional because it is not within the legislative power to enact; or it creates or establishes methods or forms that infringe constitutional principles; or its purpose or effect violates the Constitution or its basic principles. As shown in the above discussion, Section 4(b) is inconsistent with Article VI, Section 21 (Congress’ power of inquiry), Article XI, Section 1 (principle of public accountability), Article II, Section 28 (policy of full disclosure) and Article III, Section 7 (right to public information).Accordingly, petitioner cannot shield Lourdes Magno, its Records Officer, from complying with the subpoena by invoking the provision of Section 4(b) of Executive Order No. 1.
Significantly, Section 3, Article VIII of the Constitution provides:All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions, and other executive issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed, or revoked.The clear import of this provision is that all existing laws, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions and other executive issuances inconsistent or repugnant to the Constitution are repealed.
It would seem constitutionally offensive to suppose that a member or staff member of the PCGG could not be required to testify before the Sandiganbayan or that such members were exempted from complying with orders of this Court.As to the second ground, suffice it to state that we cannot discern from the records that the assailed subpoena is unreasonable or oppressive. As aptly stated by private respondents, the documents sought are material and relevant to the issues and are properly described and identified in their motion for its issuance.