G.R. No.

L-29274 November 27, 1975 Pursuant to his special powers and duties under Section 64 of the Revised
Administrative Code,1 the President of the Philippines created the
SEC. QUIRICO P. EVANGELISTA, in his capacity as Secretary of the Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government Operations (PARGO)
Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government Operations, and the under Executive Order No. 4 of January 7, 1966.2 Purposedly, he charged
PRESIDENTIAL AGENCY ON REFORMS AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS the Agency with the following functions and responsibilities: 3
(PARGO), petitioner,
vs. b. To investigate all activities involving or affecting immoral practices, graft
HON. HILARION U. JARENCIO, as Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance and corruptions, smuggling (physical or technical), lawlessness, subversion,
of Manila, Branch XXIII, and FERNANDO MANALASTAS, Assistant City and all other activities which are prejudicial to the government and the
Public Service Officer of Manila, and ALL OTHER CITY OFFICIALS AND public interests, and to submit proper recommendations to the President
EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED, respondents. of the Philippines.

Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Ist. Assistant Solicitor c. To investigate cases of graft and corruption and violations of Republic
General Esmeraldo Umali and Solicitor Bernardo P. Pardo for petitioners. Acts Nos. 1379 and 3019, and gather necessary evidence to establish prima
facie, acts of graft and acquisition of unlawfully amassed wealth ... .
Gregorio A. Ejercito and Felix C. Chavez for respondents.
h. To receive and evaluate, and to conduct fact-finding investigations of
MARTIN, J.: sworn complaints against the acts, conduct or behavior of any public
official or employee and to file and prosecute the proper charges with the
This is an original action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
appropriate agency.
injunction, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul and set
aside the order of respondent Judge, the Honorable Hilarion J. Jarencio, For a realistic performance of these functions, the President vested in the
Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, dated July 1, 1968, Agency all the powers of an investigating committee under Sections 71 and
in Civil Case No. 73305, entitled "Fernando Manalastas vs. Sec. Ramon D. 580 of the Revised Administrative Code, including the power to summon
Bagatsing, etc.", which reads as follows: witnesses by subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, administer oaths, take
testimony or evidence relevant to the investigation.4
IT IS ORDERED that, upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P5,000.00,
let the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for by the petitioner [private Whereupon, on June 7, 1968, petitioner Quirico Evangelista, as
respondent] be issued restraining the respondents [petitioners], their Undersecretary of the Agency, issued to respondent Fernando Manalastas,
agents, representatives, attorneys and/or other persons acting in their then Acting City Public Service Officer of Manila, a subpoena ad
behalf from further issuing subpoenas in connection with the fact- testificandum commanding him "to be and appear as witness at the Office
finding investigations to the petitioner [private respondent] and from of the PRESIDENTIAL AGENCY ON REFORMS AND GOVERNMENT
instituting contempt proceedings against the petitioner [private OPERATIONS ... then and there to declare and testify in a certain
respondent] under Section 580 of the Revised Administrative Code. (Stress investigation pending therein."
supplied).

Page 1 of 4
Instead of obeying the subpoena, respondent Fernando Manalastas filed in proceedings of a legislative or judicial nature, but also in proceedings
on June 25, 1968 with the Court of First Instance of Manila an Amended whose sole purpose is to obtain information upon which future action of a
Petition for prohibition, certiorari and/or injunction with preliminary legislative or judicial nature may be taken 9 and may require the
injunction and/or restraining order docketed as Civil Case No. 73305 and attendance of witnesses in proceedings of a purely investigatory nature. It
assailed its legality. may conduct general inquiries into evils calling for correction, and to report
findings to appropriate bodies and make recommendations for actions. 10
On July 1, 1968, respondent Judge issued the aforementioned Order:
We recognize that in the case before Us, petitioner Agency draws its
IT IS ORDERED that, upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P5,000.00, subpoena power from Executive Order No. 4, para. 5 which, in an
let the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for by the petitioner [private effectuating mood, empowered it to "summon witness, administer oaths,
respondent] be issued restraining the respondents [petitioners], their and take testimony relevant to the investigation" 11 with the authority "to
agents, representatives, attorneys and/or other persons acting in their require the production of documents under a subpoena duces tecum or
behalf from further issuing subpoenas in connection with the fact- otherwise, subject in all respects to the same restrictions and qualifications
finding investigations to the petitioner [private respondent] and from as apply in judicial proceedings of a similar character." 12 Such subpoena
instituting contempt proceedings against the petitioner [private power operates in extenso to all the functions of the Agency as laid out in
respondent] under Section 530 of the Revised Administrative Code. (Stress the aforequoted sub-paragraphs (b),(e), and (h). It is not bordered by nor is
supplied). it merely exercisable, as respondents would have it, in quasi-judicial or
adjudicatory function under sub-paragraph (b). The functions enumerated
Because of this, petitioners 5 elevated the matter direct to Us without a
in all these sub-paragraphs (b), (e), and (h) interlink or intertwine with one
motion for reconsideration first filed on the fundamental submission that
another with the principal aim of meeting the very purpose of the creation
the Order is a patent nullity.6
of the Agency, which is to forestall and erode nefarious activities and
As unfurled, the dominant issue in this case is whether the Agency, acting anomalies in the civil service. To hold that the subpoena power of the
thru its officials, enjoys the authority to issue subpoenas in its conduct of Agency is confined to mere quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functions would
fact-finding investigations. therefore imperil or inactiviate the Agency in its investigatory functions
under
It has been essayed that the life blood of the administrative process is the sub-paragraphs (e) and (h). More than that, the enabling authority itself
flow of fact, the gathering, the organization and the analysis of (Executive Order No. 4, para. 5) fixes no distinction when and in what
evidence.7 Investigations are useful for all administrative functions, not function should the subpoena power be exercised. Similarly, We see no
only for rule making, adjudication, and licensing, but also for prosecuting, reason to depart from the established rule that forbids differentiation
for supervising and directing, for determining general policy, for when the law itself makes none.
recommending, legislation, and for purposes no more specific than
illuminating obscure areas to find out what if anything should be done. 8 An Nor could We impress upon this subpoena power the alleged strictures of
administrative agency may be authorized to make investigations, not only a subpoena issued under the Rules of Court 13 to abridge its application.
The seeming proviso in Section 580 of the Revised Administrative Code

Page 2 of 4
that the right to summon witnesses and the authority to require the follow that an administrative agency charged with seeing that the laws are
production of documents under a subpoena duces tecum or otherwise enforced may not have and exercise powers of original inquiry. The
shall be "subject in all respects to the same restrictions and qualifications administrative agency has the power of inquisition which is not dependent
as apply in judicial proceedings of a similar character" cannot be validly upon a case or controversy in order to get evidence, but can investigate
seized upon to require, in respondents' formulation, that, as in a subpoena merely on suspicion that the law is being violated or even just because it
under the Rules, a specific case must be pending before a court for hearing wants assurance that it is not. When investigative and accusatory duties
or trial and that the hearing or trial must be in connection with the exercise are delegated by statute to an administrative body, it, too may take steps
of the court's judicial or adjudicatory functions 14 before a non-judicial to inform itself as to whether there is probable violation of the law. 21 In
subpoena can be issued by an administrative agency like petitioner Agency. sum, it may be stated that a subpoena meets the requirements for
It must be emphasized, however, that an administrative subpoena enforcement if the inquiry is (1) within the authority of the agency; (2) the
differs in essence from a judicial subpoena. Clearly, what the Rules speaks demand is not too indefinite; and (3) the information is reasonably
of is a judicial subpoena, one procurable from and issuable by a competent relevant. 22
court, and not an administrative subpoena. To an extent, therefore, the
"restrictions and qualifications" referred to in Section 580 of the Revised There is no doubt that the fact-finding investigations being conducted by
Administrative Code could mean the restraints against infringement of the Agency upon sworn statements implicating certain public officials of
constitutional rights or when the subpoena is unreasonable or oppressive the City Government of Manila in anomalous transactions 23 fall within the
and when the relevancy of the books, documents or things does not Agency's sphere of authority and that the information sought to be elicited
appear. 15 from respondent Fernando Manalastas, of which he is claimed to be in
possession, 24 is reasonably relevant to the investigations.
Rightly, administrative agencies may enforce subpoenas issued in the
course of investigations, whether or not adjudication is involved, and We are mindful that the privilege against self-incrimination extends in
whether or not probable cause is shown 16 and even before the issuance of administrative investigations, generally, in scope similar to adversary
a complaint. 17 It is not necessary, as in the case of a warrant, that a proceedings. 25 In Cabal v. Kapunan, Jr., 26 the Court ruled that since the
specific charge or complaint of violation of law be pending or that the administrative charge of unexplained wealth against the respondent
order be made pursuant to one. It is enough that the investigation be for a therein may result in the forfeiture of the property under the Anti-Graft
lawfully authorized purpose. 18 The purpose of the subpoena is to discover and Corrupt Practices Act, a proceeding criminal or penal in nature, the
evidence, not to prove a pending charge, but upon which to make one if complainant cannot call the respondent to the witness stand without
the discovered evidence so justifies. 19 Its obligation cannot rest on a trial encroaching upon his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.
of the value of testimony sought; it is enough that the proposed Later, in Pascual, Jr. v. Board of Medical Examiners, 27 the same approach
investigation be for a lawfully authorized purpose, and that the proposed was followed in the administrative proceedings against a medical
witness be claimed to have information that might shed some helpful practitioner that could possibly result in the loss of his privilege to practice
light. 20 Because judicial power is reluctant if not unable to summon the medical profession. Nevertheless, in the present case, We find that
evidence until it is shown to be relevant to issues on litigations it does not respondent Fernando Manalastas is not facing any administrative
charge. 28 He is merely cited as a witness in connection with the fact-finding

Page 3 of 4
investigation of anomalies and irregularities in the City Government of
Manila with the object of submitting the assembled facts to the President
of the Philippines or to file the corresponding charges. 29 Since the only
purpose of investigation is to discover facts as a basis of future action, any
unnecessary extension of the privilege would thus be unwise. 30 Anyway,
by all means, respondent Fernando Manalastas may contest any attempt in
the investigation that tends to disregard his privilege against self-
incrimination.

A question of constitutional dimension is raised by respondents on the

inherent power of the President of the Philippines to issue
subpoena. 31 More tersely stated, respondents would now challenge, in a
collateral way, the validity of the basic authority, Executive Order No. 4, as
amended in part by Executive Order No. 88. Unfortunately, for reasons of
public policy, the constitutionality of executive orders, which are
commonly said to have the force and effect of statutes 32 cannot be
collaterally impeached. 33 Much more when the issue was not duly pleaded
in the court below as to be acceptable for adjudication now. 34 The settled
rule is that the Court will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in
advance of the necessity of deciding it. 35

Nothing then appears conclusive than that the disputed subpoena issued
by petitioner Quirico Evangelista to respondent Fernando Manalastas is
well within the legal competence of the Agency to issue.

WHEREFORE, the aforequoted order of respondent Judge, dated July 1,

1968, is hereby set aside and declared of no force and effect.

Without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Page 4 of 4