When constitutional powers and rights collide

TO be perfectly clear, I, like the rest of the country, stand for the truth and justice in the death of Horatio Castillo 3rd. While watching the televised inquiry at the Senate last week, many individuals invoked the right against self-incrimination to seemingly simple and straightforward questions, acts which clearly irked the inquiring legislators, as well as those observing, myself included. One person refused to answer simple questions, prompting one senator to motion to hold him in contempt, which was promptly seconded.

While writing this article, the glam rock classic by Def Leppard, “When Love and Hate Collide” came to mind. In much the same way that the emotions of love and hate stem from a single source, the heart, so too do the inquiry powers (and the associated contempt powers) of the legislature and the right against self-incrimination stem from a single source, the Constitution.

Hence, I pondered on the seeming clash between the two. After all, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Instances such as this, where the Constitution’s provisions for governmental power and a fundamental right are at odds, lead me to ponder how these are meant to be reconciled.

ATTY. IRA PAULO POZON

The right against self-incrimination, and with all due respect, is neither the right to self- incrimination nor the right against self-discrimination, is not spelled out as such in the Constitution, but rather, is contained under Section 17, Article III as “no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” Our the oft-heard Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, as well as the venerable Latin maxim

or “no one is bound to accuse himself.”

On the other hand, the legislature’s power to conduct inquiries is found in Section 21, Article VI, which provides that either house of Congress or any of their respective committees “may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.” The same Constitutional provision seeks to protect the civil liberties of people appearing in these inquiries, in an explicit manner. It states that, “the rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.”

At this point one may argue that nowhere in the Constitution provides the Legislative branch the power to hold persons in contempt for refusing to appear or answer questions in these inquiries, and that would be correct. In fact, the only instance the word “contempt” is found in the Constitution is under Article XIII, referencing the contempt powers of the Commission on Human Rights.

However, clarity is found in jurisprudence. As early as Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820(1950) to as recent as

B2