Subpoena in Latin literally means “under pain.” It is a practice dating back more than two thousand years (under Roman Law) as a compulsory process to ensure the attendance of anyone that the Emperor of Rome, its Senate or its court deems necessary to be heard on any matter. Thus, the summons contains the caveat — as it still does in this modern time — “fail not under penalty of law.”

Under our present laws and jurisprudence, Congress has retained the power to issue subpoenas in cases of “inquiries in aid of legislation.” Under such constitutional grant, legislative committees may invite persons to testify on matters either within their technical expertise or on factual matters peculiarly within their knowledge.

If a letter of invitation is not voluntarily heeded, then a subpoena is issued, and that carries with it the aforementioned coercive mechanisms to ensure attendance: Refusal means being held in contempt and imprisoned at the pleasure of the legislature.

Speaking of contempt powers, the same is also used if the lawmakers in a committee think a witness is lying, or is refusing to answer questions, or sometimes simply when the witness is not saying the things the legislators want to hear.

In other words, oftentimes, the power is exercised whimsically and capriciously. The problem is that — aside from an abundance of Congress members who pretend to be wise and mature yet are naught but insecure kids prone to temper tantrums and bullying — unlike in the United States where a congressional contempt charge is treated as akin to a criminal offense and subject to trial before a Federal court, here the lawmaker is prosecutor, judge and executioner rolled into one. The violation of the constitutional principles of due process is palpable and appalling and is crying out for reform, but that is another matter for another column.

Proof positive of this misuse of contempt powers is not only the abundance of petitions brought before the Supreme Court by “invited guests” of Congress asking the High Tribunal to curb these excesses but by a wealth of judicial pronouncements practically scolding Congress for its propensity to outrun the boundaries of what is permissible under its power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.

In Senate v. Ermita, the High Court plainly ruled that the Senate may not usurp judicial functions. In this respect, the Senate was enjoined to attach to its invitations to resource persons a draft of the “needed legislation” to prevent a roving commission.

A pithy reminder for the Legislature to respect the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries, “an imposition that obligates Congress to adhere to the guarantees in the Bill of Rights,” was also issued in Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. In Neri v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, the Senate was admonished to use its contempt powers sparingly. The practice of incarcerating witnesses indefinitely for contempt was struck a fatal blow in Balag v. Senate.

More tellingly, in the very recent case of Ong v. Senate Blue Ribbon, the Senate was once again castigated for abusing the power of inquiry. That the Senate cannot conduct a trial or adjudicate rights was the cryptic rebuke of the Supreme Court to the Senate as it nullified a contempt order by the latter’s Blue Ribbon Committee.

Judicial pronouncements are part of the law of the land. And the current trend appears to be to rein in the misuse of legislative prerogatives. But some Senators arrogantly think themselves above the law by willfully failing to heed the teachings of the Court on the extent of their powers. These ulalos contumaciously keep abusing invited speakers. It is no wonder that many have lost respect for some Senate Committees and have chosen to snub subpoenas, rather than place themselves at the mercy of Neanderthals masquerading as lawmakers.