IT is becoming apparent that contempt citations of Congress are becoming more frequent, with some of its members appearing to be trigger-happy in dispensing a power that the Supreme Court has upheld to be its right.

At the outset, there is a legitimate basis for Congress to exercise its contempt powers, and this arises from its constitutional duty to legislate and to conduct hearings in aid of its performance of such duty. In the 1950 landmark case Arnault v. Nazareno (GR L-3820), the Court ruled that Congress could not effectively perform this duty without the necessary information required. It is precisely because of this that the Court bestowed upon Congress its inherent right to cite in contempt those who would obstruct its information-gathering function in aid of legislation. This was echoed by the Court in 2023 in Linconn Uy Ong v. Senate and Michael Yang Hong Ming v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (GRs 257401 and 257916) when it ruled that '[t]his power permits either house of the legislature to perform its duties without impediment as it enables the Senate or the House of Representatives to legislate wisely or effectively because they have the power to compel the availability of information necessary in shaping legislation.'