Case Digest No.

12
Reghis Romero II, et al. vs. Jinggoy Estrada, et al.
G.R. No. 174105, April 2, 2009

FACTS:
Assailing the constitutionality of the invitations and compulsory processes issued by the
senate committee on labor, employment, and human resources development in
connection with its investigation of the investment of Overseas Workers Welfare
Administration (OWWA) funds in the smokey mountain project, petitioners filed a
petition for prohibition with the application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and
preliminary injunction under Rule 65.
Resolutions No.537 and 543 states that the Committee on Labor, Employment, and
Human Resources Development invited petitioner Reghis Romero II, the owner of R-11
Builders Inc., to a public hearing in the Senate on August 23, 2006, regarding the
investment of OWWA (Overseas Workers Welfare Administration) funds in the Smokey
Mountain project. The purpose of the investigation is to assist the Senate in reviewing
and potentially amending the relevant provisions of RA 8042, also known as the Migrant
Workers Act.
In his letter reply, petitioner Romero asked to be excused from attending the
Committee's scheduled hearings on the subject and purpose of Philippine Senate
Resolution Nos.537 and 543. His request was denied by the Committee. The remaining
six petitioners, at the time members of R-11 Builders Inc.'s Board of Directors, were
invited to the Committee hearing on September 4, 2006, on the same date. The
following day, petitioner Romero II was summoned by Senator Jinggoy Estrada,
Chairman of the Committee, to appear before the Committee and provide testimony
regarding the aforementioned Senate resolutions. Subpoenas were later issued to the
R-II Builders Inc. Board of Directors by the Committee.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the subject matter of the Senate inquiry is sub judice.

DECISION:
No. The Supreme court held that the sub judice issue has been rendered moot and
academic by the supervening issuance of the en banc resolution of July 1, 2008, in GR
No. 164527. An issue or a case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present
a justiciable controversy so that a determination of the issue would be without practical
use and value. In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which the petitioner
would be entitled, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Thus,
there is no more obstacle1on the ground of sub judice, assuming it is invocable to the
continuation of the Committee’s investigation challenged in this proceeding.
The court also found that when the Commission issued subpoenas and subpoenas to
the petitioner to appear before the Commission in relation to the petitioner's investment
investigation, it did so under its authority to investigate in support of that law. This is
clearly stated in Art. VI, Article 21 of the Philippine Constitution of 1987. Courts have no
power to prevent Senate committees from requiring persons to appear and testify in
connection with an investigation in support of legislation in accordance with fully
published rules of procedure.

The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be
respected. (Art, VI, Section 21 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution).