Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bataan Shipyard Engineering Co Vs PCGG
Bataan Shipyard Engineering Co Vs PCGG
Facts:
Issue:
No. The order to produce documents was issued upon the authority of Section 3 (e) of
Executive Order No. 1, treating of the PCGG's power to "issue subpoenas requiring * *
the production of such books, papers, contracts, records, statements of accounts and
other documents as may be material to the investigation conducted by the Commission.
It is elementary that the right against self-incrimination has no application to juridical
persons. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions
unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested
with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with
an abuse of such privileges. Corporations are not entitled to all of the constitutional
protections, which private individuals have. They are not at all within the privilege
against self-incrimination; although this court more than once has said that the privilege
runs very closely with the 4th Amendment's Search and Seizure provisions. It is also
settled that an officer of the company cannot refuse to produce its records in its
possession upon the plea that they will either incriminate him or may incriminate it."
The corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the
benefit of the public. It received certain special privileges and franchises, and holds
them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. It’s powers are
limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a
corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is
a reserve right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has
exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having
chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of
sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had
been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that
purpose. The defense amounts to this, that an officer of the corporation which is
charged with a criminal violation of the statute may plead the criminality of such
corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it.
While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless
protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with
special privileges and franchises may refuse to show its hand when charged with an
abuse of such privileges. (Wilson v. United States, 55 Law Ed., 771, 780 [emphasis, the
Solicitor General's]) The constitutional safeguard against unreasonable searches and
seizures finds no application to the case at bar either. There has been no search
undertaken by any agent or representative of the PCGG, and of course no seizure on
the occasion thereof.