The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed the petition filed by Katherine Cassandra Li Ong, one of the key personalities linked to the Philippine offshore gaming operators (Pogos), that questioned the Senate and House of Representatives’ authority to compel her to appear and testify in their investigations.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the SC said Ong failed to justify her decision to directly take her case to the Supreme Court.
Ong, who was linked to Pogo facilities, Lucky South 99 Outsourcing, and Whirlwind Corp., filed a petition to the Supreme Court to stop the House of Representatives committees from violating her rights after she refused to attend subsequent hearings.
She said her rights to remain silent and right against self-incrimination have been violated when they insist that she answer their queries involving her participation in an alleged violation of the law.
Ong said her case falls under the exception to hierarchy of courts because there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed by SC, the issue is of transcendental importance, her case is of first impression, she has no other speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law, and her petition includes questions that are for the broader interest of justice.
But the SC, in dismissing her case, said Ong failed to specify ‘how any of those exceptions actually apply to her case.’
‘On this score alone, petitioner’s invocation of the exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts is unconvincing,’ the SC said.
Even on the merits, the SC En Banc unanimously affirmed the power of Congress to conduct inquiries ‘in aid of legislation,’ upholding the committees’ actions during their separate 2024 hearings on illegal activities tied to POGOs.
The SC said Congress, including its committees, possesses the power to conduct legislative inquiries and has the authority to cite individuals in contempt or order their arrest to compel attendance, testimony, or submission of documents, provided the inquiry is in aid of legislation and follows published rules.
It added that the right against self-incrimination is not a blanket right. It should only be invoked when a specific, incriminating question is asked.
‘Here, it appears that petitioner [Ong] broadly invokes her right against self-incrimination as she posits that the proceedings with the respondents are in the nature of a custodial investigation,’ the SC explained.
The SC also noted that as a resource person, Ong could not refuse to appear before the committees, although she retains the right to decline answering questions that call for incriminating answers, while the right to be assisted by counsel applies exclusively during custodial investigations of individuals suspected of committing a crime.