The subpoena issued by the Senate Committee on Women, Children, Family Relations, and Gender Equality (Committee) requiring former Bamban Mayor Alice Guo (Guo) to testify in its investigation was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, in a decision he wrote dated 12 August 2025, said the SC En Banc dismissed Guo’s petition challenging the subpoena and asking the high court to prohibit the Committee from inviting her as a resource person.

The subpoena was part of the Senate’s inquiry into illegal Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator (POGO) activities in Bamban, Tarlac. Guo was called to provide information relevant to the investigation.

When Guo first appeared before the Senate Committee, she was asked about her parents’ occupation, the late registration of her birth, her education, and her connections to certain individuals.

Her birth certificate, Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs), and business records were revealed to the public in the next hearing.

After Guo missed the next two hearings, the committee issued an arrest order against her and cited her in contempt.

She then filed the present petition before the SC, claiming that the Senate inquiry violated her constitutional rights to due process, privacy, and security.

Guo also asked the SC to lift the contempt order against her, but the SC affirmed that the Senate hearings followed the Constitution and the Senate Rules of Procedure.

The SC emphasized that Guo’s rights were not violated and the inquiry was a legitimate exercise of legislative power aimed at protecting the public interest and upholding the law.

Under Article VI, Section 21 of the Constitution, the Senate and its committees can conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, as long as they follow the established rules of procedure and respect the rights of persons involved.

The SC found that the Committee’s investigation into illegal POGO operations in Bamban, Tarlac, was within its authority. The questions asked about Guo’s identity, family, relationships, assets, and businesses were relevant and necessary to the inquiry.

Guo was invited as a resource person, not as an accused; the subpoena and related actions followed the Senate rules.

The Senate committee informed Guo of the inquiry’s scope and retained her right against self-incrimination, which she chose not to exercise.

The SC noted, on privacy concerns, that public officials have a limited expectation of privacy when their actions involve official functions or matters of national interest.

Documents such as Guo’s birth certificate, SALNs, and business records were essential to the investigation and thus lawfully disclosed, even under the Data Privacy Act of 2012.

Regarding contempt, the Committee cited Guo for leaving the Philippines despite notice of the next hearing, and for refusing to answer even basic questions during one of the hearings she attended.

The SC affirmed that citing individuals for contempt is part of the Senate’s legislative powers.

The Court reiterated two key safeguards for legislative inquiries: they must follow the Senate’s published rules of procedure; and they must respect the rights of the individuals involved, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

It clarified that the purpose of a legislative inquiry is not to find guilt, but to ensure effective legislation.