Standard Chartered Bank (Philippine Branch) vs.

Senate Committee on Banks, Financial Institutions and Currencies

FACTS: Petitioner, Standard Chartered Bank, is an institution incorporated in England with limited liability licensed to engage in banking, trust, and other related operations in the country. It violated RA 87991 for selling unregistered foreign securities. Senator Enrile2 in his privilege speech introduced a Resolution3 to attend to the matter. The respondent-committees chairperson Sen. Angara set an initial hearing to investigate in aid of legislation thereto. Respondent invited petitioners to attend the hearing and submit their written position paper. Petitioners, in response, submitted to respondent a letter stressing their position that there were cases already pending in court which involved the same issues that the respondent is subjecting to legislative inquiry. The petitioner thereby poses a challenge to the jurisdiction of respondent committee to continue the inquiry since there are cases of a similar subject filed in court of which are still pending. Respondent still commenced the investigation. Its vice chairperson moved for the issuance of a subpoena to those who did not attend the hearing.4 Said motion was approved thereby the cause of a petition. Standard Chartered Bank, petitioned for a TRO to direct the Senate Committee on Banks from: 1. Proceeding with its inquiry pursuant to a Senate Resolution5 2. Compelling the Banks officers to attend and testify before any further hearing called by the respondent Committee 3. Enforcing any Hold-departure order (HDO) and/or putting the petitioners on the Watch list Petitioner-Bank also prays that judgment be rendered annulling the subpoena ad testificandum6 and duces tecum 7issued to them and prohibit the Committee from compelling them to appear and testify in the inquiry being conducted pursuant to the Resolution. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent committee acted without jurisdiction and/or acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, purportedly in aid of legislation
1 2

Securities and Regulation Code. He is the Vice Chairperson of herein respondent. 3 Resolution directs the Senate Committee on Banks to conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation, into the illegal sale of unregistered and high-risk securities by petitioner-bank which resulted in billions of pesos of losses to the investing public 4 The Senate request the DOJ, through the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, to issue a Holddeparture order (HDO) AGAINST THEM AND/OR INCLUDE THEM IN THE Bureaus Watch list. 5 Said Resolution directs the Senate Committee on Banks to conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation, into the illegal sale of unregistered and high-risk securities by petitioner-bank which resulted in billions of pesos of losses to the investing public 6 A court summons to appear and give oral testimony for use at a hearing or trial. 7 A court summons ordering a named party to appear before the court and produce documents or other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial.

HELD: Petition for prohibition DENIED. RATIO/DOCTRINE: Respondent has jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry although the subject matter involved is the very same subject matter pending in court. The respondent-committees action does not encroach upon the judicial powers vested solely on the courts. The petitioners reliance to the Bengzon8 case is misplaced to the extent that, in the case at bar, there are a number of cases already pending in various courts and administrative bodies involving the petitioners, relative to the alleged sale of unregistered foreign securities, there is a resemblance between this case and Bengzon. However, the similarity ends there. Central to the Courts ruling in Bengzon was the courts determination that the intended inquiry was not in aid of legislation. The petitioners erred in alleging that the inquiry was simply to denounce the illegal practice committed by a foreign bank in selling unregistered foreign securities. This fallacy is made more glaring at the conclusion of Sen. Enriles privilege speech urging the Senate to immediately conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation, so as to prevent the occurrence of a similar fraudulent activity in the future. Indeed, the mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before a court or a quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation. Otherwise, it would be extremely easy to subvert any intended inquiry by Congress through the convenient ploy of instituting a criminal or an administrative complaint. Surely, the exercise of sovereign legislative authority, of which the power of legislative inquiry is an essential component, cannot be made subordinate to a criminal or an administrative investigation.

In this case the Court declared that the issue to be investigated was one over which jurisdiction had already been acquired by the Sandiganbayan, and to allow the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to investigate the matter create the possibility of conflicting judgments; and that the inquiry into the same justiciable controversy would be an encroachment on the exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction.