MANILA — The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition filed by Katherine Cassandra Li Ong against the Senate and House of Representatives (HOR) committees that conducted hearings on Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs).

In a decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC En Banc upheld Congress’ authority to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.

In 2024, both chambers of Congress held separate hearings on illegal activities linked to POGOs. The Senate’s inquiry was led by the Tricomm, composed of the Committees on Justice and Human Rights; Women, Children, Family Relations, and Gender Equality; and Public Services. The House, meanwhile, formed the Quadcomm, made up of the Committees on Dangerous Drugs; Public Accounts; Public Order, Safety, and Accountability; and Human Rights.

Ong, who was linked to POGO facilities raided in Pampanga and Tarlac, was invited to attend both hearings. She initially refused to answer questions at the Quadcomm hearing until she eventually responded after allegedly being physically separated and prevented from approaching her lawyer.

She later informed both panels that she would no longer attend, invoking her right to remain silent.

Ong then filed a petition before the SC to stop the Tricomm and Quadcomm from allegedly violating her rights to remain silent and against self-incrimination. She claimed these rights applied since the questions involved her possible participation in a crime. She also accused Congress of abusing its power by pressuring her to provide information.

The Court rejected Ong’s claims, ruling that Congress has the power to conduct legislative inquiries and cite individuals in contempt, and, if necessary, order their arrest to compel attendance, testimony, or submission of documents.

The SC said these inquiries must be “in aid of legislation, conducted according to published rules of procedure, and respectful of the rights of individuals involved.”

It clarified that the right against self-incrimination can only be invoked when a specific incriminating question is asked. Ong, however, invoked the right broadly without referring to any particular question.

The Court added that while an accused in a criminal proceeding may refuse to take the witness stand, an ordinary witness may not. As Ong was summoned as a resource person, she could not refuse to appear before the committees but could decline to answer specific incriminating questions.

On her claim of the right to counsel, the SC ruled that it applies only to custodial investigations involving individuals suspected of a crime. Since Ong was invited as a resource person in a legislative inquiry, and not as an accused, she could not invoke that right.