SC raps Senate in Pharmally case

THE Supreme Court has ruled that the Senate committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing contempt and arrest orders against Pharmally Pharmaceuticals Corp. resource persons during its inquiry into Department of Health (DoH) expenditures covering the government's Covid-19 pandemic response.

The Supreme Court en banc, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, stemmed from the petitions for certiorari and prohibition filed by Linconn Uy Ong and Michael Yang Hong Ming that challenged the Senate action against them.

In 2021, the Senate blue ribbon committee, which was holding hearings on the DoH expenditures, summoned officers of Pharmally, including Ong, a board member and supply chain manager, and Yang, a member of the Philippine Full Win Group of Companies Inc., to testify.

Ong and Yang failed to appear at the first hearings but attended the hearing on September 10, 2021. The committee cited them for contempt and ordered their arrest for «testifying falsely and evasively.»

Ong and Yang challenged the Senate summons before the Supreme Court.

The Court said that the Senate has the power to cite someone in contempt «anchored on the principle of self-preservation. As that branch of government vested with legislative power, it can assert its authority and punish contumacious acts against it independently of the Judicial Branch. Such power of the Legislature is 'sui generis' as it attaches not to the discharge of legislative functions per se but to the character of the Legislature as one of the three independent and coordinate branches of government.»

Congress can also arrest a witness «to carry out the coercive process of compelling attendance, testimony and production of documents relevant and material in a legislative inquiry.»

Reiterating its previous ruling, the Court held that some means of compulsion are essential, as experience has shown that «mere requests for [relevant] information are often unavailing» and that «information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete.»

But in the case of Ong and Yang, the Court found that the Senate ordered their arrest without giving them the chance to be heard.

The Court also ruled that the