121

G.R. No. 167173 December 27, 2007

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (PhilippineB r a n c h ) , P AU L S I M O N M O R
R I S , S U N D AR A R A M E S H , O W E N B E L M A N , S A N J A Y AGGARW
AL, RAJAMANI CHANDRASHEKAR, MARIVEL GONZALES, MA. ELLEN VICTOR,
CH ON A G. RE YE S, Z EN AI D A I G LE S I AS , R AM O N A BERN AD ,
MICH AEL ANGELO A G U I L A R , a n d F E R N A N D T AN S I N G C O ,

Domato, Junaid E.

Facts:
Before us is a Petition for Prohibition (With Prayer for Issuance of Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Injunction) dated and filed on March 11,
2005 by petitioners against respondent Senate Committeeon Banks, Financial
Institutions and Currencies, as represented by Edgardo Angara. Petitioner
SCB is a bank instituted in England. Petitioners are Executive officers of said.
Respondent is one of the permanent committees of the Senate of the Philippines.
The petition seeks the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to
enjoin respondent from (1) proceeding with its inquiry pursuant to Philippine Senate
(P.S.) Resolution No.166; (2) compelling petitioners who are officers of
petitioner SCB-Philippines to attend and testify before any further hearing to be
conducted by respondent, p a r t i c u l a r l y t h a t s e t o n M a r c h 1 5 ,
2 0 0 5 ; a n d ( 3 ) e n f o r c i n g a n y h o l d d e p a r t u r e o r d e r ( H D O ) a n d / o r putting
the petitioners on the Watch List. It also prays that judgment be rendered (1) annulling
the Subpoenae ad testificandum and duces tecum issued to petitioners, and (2)

prohibiting the respondent from compelling petitioners to appear and testify

in the inquiry being conducted pursuant to P.S. Resolution No. 166.
Senator

Juan

Ponce

Enrile,

V i c e Chairperson of respon

d e n t , d e l i v e r e d a p r i v i l e g e speech entitled Arrogance of Wealth before

the Senate based on a letter from Atty. Mark R. Bocobo denouncing SCBPhilippines for selling unregistered foreign securities in violation of the Securities
R e g u l a t i o n C o d e ( R . A . N o . 8 7 9 9 ) a n d u r g i n g t h e Senate to immediately
conduct an inquiry, in aid of l e g i s l a t i o n , t o p r e v e n t t h e o c c u r r e n c e
o f a s i m i l a r fraudulent activity in the future. Upon motion of Senator Francis
Pangilinan, the speech was referred to respondent. Prior to the privilege speech,
Senator Enrile had introduced P.S. Resolution No. 166, D I R E C T I N G T H E
C O M M I T T E E O N B A N K S , FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND CURRENC
IES, T O

CONDUCT AN

I N Q U I R Y, I N

AID

OF

L E G I S L A T I O N , I N T O T H E I L L E G A L S A L E O F UNREGISTERED AND
HIGH-RISK SECURITIES BY S T A N D A R D C H A R T E R E D
B A N K , W H I C H RESULTED IN BILLIONS OF PESOS OF LOSSES TO THE
INVESTING PUBLIC. Acting on the referral, respondent, through hits
Chairperson, Senator Edgardo J. Angara, set the initial hearing on February 28,
2005 to investigate, in aid of legislation, the subject matter of the speech and resolution
filed by Senator Enrile. Respondent invited petitioners to attend the h e a r i n g ,
r e q u e s t i n g t h e m t o s u b m i t t h e i r w r i t t e n position paper. Petitioners, through
counsel, submitted t o r e s p o n d e n t a l e t t e r d a t e d F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 2 0 0 5
presenting their position, particularly stressing that there were cases pending in

court allegedly involvingt h e s a m e i s s u e s s u b j e c t o f t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n q u i r y,

t h e r e b y p o s i n g a c h a l l e n g e t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f respondent to continue
with the inquiry. O n F e b r u a r y 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , r e s p o n d e n t commenced
the investigation. Senator Enrile inquired who among those invited as resource
persons were present and who were absent. Thereafter, Senator Enrile
moved that subpoenae be issued to those who did not attend the hearing and that
the Senate request t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f J u s t i c e , t h r o u g h t h e B u r e a u o f
Immigration and Deportation, to issue an HDO against them and/or include them in the
Bureaus Watch List.S e n a t o r J u a n F l a v i e r s e c o n d e d t h e m o t i o n a n d t h e
motion was approved. R e s p o n d e n t t h e n p r o c e e d e d w i t h t h e
investigation proper. Towards the end of the hearing, p e t i t i o n e r s ,

through

c o u n s e l , m a d e a n O p e n i n g Statement that brought to the attention of

respondent the lack of proper authorization from affected clientsfor the bank to make
disclosures of their accounts and t h e l a c k o f c o p i e s o f t h e
a c c u s i n g d o c u m e n t s mentioned in Senator Enrile's privilege speech,
and r e i t e r a t e d t h a t t h e r e w e r e p e n d i n g c o u r t c a s e s regarding the
alleged sale in the Philippines by SCB-Philippines of unregistered foreign securities.

Issue:
Whether or not Petitioners claim that since the issue of whether or not SCBPhilippines illegally sold unregistered foreign securities is already pre
empted by the courts t h a t t o o k c o g n i z a n c e o f t h e f o r e g o i n g c a s e s , t h e

respondent, by this investigation, would encroach upon the judicial powers

vested solely in these courts.

Held:
Contention is UNTENABLE.P.S. Resolution No. 166 is explicit on the subject
and nature of the inquiry to be (and already being) conducted by the
respondent Committee, as found in the last three.
Whereas clauses thereof. T h e u n m i s t a k a b l e o b j e c t i v e o f
t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , a s s e t f o r t h i n t h e s a i d r e s o l u t i o n , exposes the
error in petitioners allegation that the inquiry, as initiated in a privilege speech by
the very same Senator Enrile, was simply to denounce the illegal practice
committed by a foreign bank in selling unregistered foreign securities. This fallacy is
m a d e m o r e g l a r i n g w h e n w e c o n s i d e r t h a t , a t t h e conclusion
of his privilege speech, Senator Enrile u r g e d t h e S e n a t e t o
i m m e d i a t e l y c o n d u c t a n 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.