DIGEST/NORIZA JEAN DAGA/NORECO II VS SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD OF DUMAGUETE

 NEGROS ORIENTAL II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., PATERIO TORRES and ARTURO UMBAC, petitioners,

vs.

SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD OF DUMAGUETE, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE OF THE SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD OF DUMAGUETE and ANTONIO S. RAMAS UYPITCHING, respondents.

 G.R. No. 72492 November 5, 1987

 

Facts:

           The petitioners, Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (NORECO II), assailed the validity of the subpoena sent by respondent Ad Hoc Committee of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete. The said subpoena required the attendance and testimony of Paterio Torres and Arturo Umbac at the Committee’s investigation. NORECO II also assailed the Order issued by the same committee directing NORECO II to show cause why they should not be punished for legislative contempt due to their failure to appear at said investigation.

The investigation to be conducted by respondent Committee was in connection with pending legislation related to operations of public utilities. Specifically, the inquiry was to focus on the alleged installation and use by the petitioner NORECO II of inefficient power lines in the city. Petitioners moved to quash the subpoena on two grounds: a. the power to investigate and to order the improvement of alleged inefficient power lines is lodged exclusively with the National Electrification Administration; and b. Neither the Charter of the City of Dumaguete nor the Local Government Code grants (the Sangguniang Panlungsod) any specific power to investigate alleged inefficient power lines of NORECO II.

In an order, the motion to quash was denied directing the petitioners Torres and Umbac to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt. Hence this Petition for certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and/or Restraining Order.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not the Sanguniang Panlungsod has the power to mandate the testimony of witnesses and order arrests who fail to observe the subpoena.

 

Ruling:

            The exercise by the legislature of the contempt power is a matter of self-preservation as that branch of the government vested with the legislative power, independently of the judicial branch, asserts its authority and punishes contempt thereof. The contempt power of the legislature is, therefore, sui generis, and local legislative bodies cannot correctly claim to possess it for the same reasons that the national legislature does. The power 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. The same thing cannot be said of local legislative bodies which are creations of law.

There is no express provision either in the 1973 Constitution or in the Local Government Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 337) granting local legislative bodies, the power to subpoena witnesses and the power to punish non-members for contempt. Absent a constitutional or legal provision for the exercise of these powers, the only possible justification for the issuance of a subpoena and for the punishment of non-members for contumacious behavior would be for said power to be deemed implied in the statutory grant of delegated legislative power. But, the contempt power and the subpoena power partake of a judicial nature. They cannot be implied in the grant of legislative power. Neither can they exist as mere incidents of the performance of legislative functions. To allow local legislative bodies or administrative agencies to exercise these powers without express statutory basis would run afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.

There being no provision in the Local Government Code explicitly granting local legislative bodies, the power to issue compulsory process and the power to punish for contempt, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete is devoid of power to punish the petitioners Torres and Umbac for contempt.