exemptions to the power of inquiry, which exemptions fall under the rubric

of "executive privilege."
CASE CITATION: G.R. No. 169777. PONENTE: CARPIO MORALES, J
April 20, 2006
Only the President or Executive Secretary by authority of the President can claim
DIGEST BY: ABOviedo BLURB: executive privilege, since it is an exceptional power which can only be invoked against
the public interest if there is a high degree of necessity. The claim must be made
SECTION 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective explicitly, and cannot be assumed by silence. [Thus, in the case, the court nullified
committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly sections of an executive order which delegated the power to claim executive privilege
published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such to individuals other than the president]
inquiries shall be respected.
Executive privilege extends to categories of information, not to categories of persons.
Executive Privilege During a Legislative Investigation An official in a particular position is not automatically covered by executive privilege.
Executive privilege is the power to withhold information from the public, the Courts, and
the Congress, and ultimately the public.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE: DISPOSITION:
It covers 3 general categories: The present consolidated petitions for
certiorari and prohibition proffer that the WHEREFORE, the petitions are
1. State Secrets Privilege: the disclosure of which would subvert crucial military or President has abused such power by PARTLY GRANTED.
diplomatic objectives issuing Executive Order No. 464 (E.O.
2. Informer’s Privilege: privilege not to disclose the identity of an informer 464) last September 28, 2005. They thus Sections 2(b) and 3 of Executive Order
3. Generic Privilege: covers internal deliberations regarding governmental decisions pray for its declaration as null and void No. 464 (series of 2005), "ENSURING
and policies for being unconstitutional. OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF
SEPARATION OF POWERS,
A claim of executive privilege is valid if it falls under the above-mentioned categories, ADHERENCE TO THE RULE ON
given a particular setting. The usual approach to the invocation of executive privilege EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND
is taken from US V. Nixon (Watergate Scandal: RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF
https://www.pbs.org/johngardner/chapters/6c.html ), where the court balanced the PUBLIC OFFICIALS APPEARING IN
claim of executive privilege with that of the public interest. LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES IN AID OF
LEGISLATION UNDER THE
RECIT-READY SUMMARY: CONSTITUTION, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES," are declared VOID.
DOCTRINE: Sections 1
The power of inquiry, "with process to enforce it," is grounded on the necessity of and 2(a) are, however, VALID.
information in the legislative process. If the information possessed by executive SO ORDERED.
officials on the operation of their offices is necessary for wise legislation on that
subject, by parity of reasoning, Congress has the right to that information and the
power to compel the disclosure thereof. FACTS:
1. 2005: a privilege speech by Sen. Enrile urging the Senate to investigate the alleged
Even where the inquiry is in aid of legislation, there are still recognized overpricing and other unlawful provisions of the contract covering the North Rail Project
1
of the NLRC (North Luzon Railways Corp.) and the China National Machinery and • NLRC Pres. Cortes requested that the hearing on the NorthRail project be
Equipment Group sparked a legislative investigation by the Committee of the Senate postponed or cancelled until a copy of the report of the UP Law Center on the
as a whole contract agreements relative to the project had been secured.
2. they issued invitations to various officials of the Executive Department to appear as 5. In response to the request by Exec. Sec. Ermita, Senate Pres. Drilon replied that the
resource speakers in a public hearing on the North Rail Project Senators cannot postpone as the request was sent belatedly, and they had already
3. The Senate Committee on National Defense and Security also issued invitations to sent notices to the resource speakers
the ff officials of the AFP: 6. Soon thereafter, the President issued E.O. 464, "ENSURING
• Commanding General of the Philippine Army, Gen. Esperon OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS, ADHERENCE
• AFP Inspector General Mayuga TO THE RULE ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF
• AFP Rear Admiral and Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence Tirso Danga PUBLIC OFFICIALS APPEARING IN LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES IN AID OF
• Chief of the Intelligence Service of the AFP Brig. Gen. Quevedo LEGISLATION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,"
• Assistant Superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) Brig. which, pursuant to Section 6 thereof, took effect immediately
Gen. Francisco V. Gudani; and
• Assistant Commandant, Corps of Cadets of the PMA, Col. Alexander F. EO 464, PERTINENT PROVISIONS [mahilig si sir dito lately, so I will include it para di
Balutan, matulad sakin yung mag-rerecite nito :D ]
for them to attend as resource persons in a public hearing regarding the ff. issues: SECTION 1. Appearance by Heads of Departments Before
(1) Privilege Speech of Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr., delivered on June 6, 2005 Congress. — In accordance with Article VI, Section 22 of the
entitled "Bunye has Provided Smoking Gun or has Opened a Can of Worms Constitution and to implement the Constitutional provisions on the
that Show Massive Electoral Fraud in the Presidential Election of May 2005"; separation of powers between co-equal branches of the government,
(2) Privilege Speech of Senator Jinggoy E. Estrada delivered on July 26, 2005 all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of the
entitled "The Philippines as the Wire-Tapping Capital of the World"; government shall secure the consent of the President prior to
(3) Privilege Speech of Senator Rodolfo Biazon delivered on August 1, 2005 entitled appearing before either House of Congress.
"Clear and Present Danger";
(4) Senate Resolution No. 285 filed by Senator Maria Ana Consuelo Madrigal — Executive privilege covers all confidential or classified
Resolution Directing the Committee on National Defense and Security to Conduct information between the President and the public officers covered by
an Inquiry, in Aid of Legislation, and in the National Interest, on the Role of the this executive order, including:
Military in the So-called "Gloriagate Scandal"; and i. Conversations and correspondence between the President and the public
(5) Senate Resolution No. 295 filed by Senator Biazon — Resolution Directing the official covered by this executive order (Almonte vs. Vasquez G.R. No. 95367,
Committee on National Defense and Security to Conduct an Inquiry, in Aid of 23 May 1995; Chavez v. Public Estates Authority , G.R. No. 133250, 9 July
Legislation, on the Wire-Tapping of the President of the Philippines. 2002);
4. Two of the officials invited as resource speakers, as well as the President of the ii. Military, diplomatic and other national security matters which in the interest of
NLRC, sent letters requesting for the postponement of the hearing national security should not be divulged (Almonte vs. Vasquez , G.R. No. 95367,
• AFP Chief of Staff, Gen. Senga, who requested for postponement due to 23 May 1995 ; Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R.
“pressing operational matters” No. 130716, 9 December 1998).
• Exec. Sec. Ermita, who requested for postponement to afford various officials iii. Information between inter-government agencies prior to the conclusion of
of the Executive Dept. ample time and opportunity to study and prepare for the treaties and executive agreements (Chavez v. Presidential Commission on
various issues so that they may better enlighten the Senate Committee on its Good Government , G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998);
investigation.” iv. Discussion in close-door Cabinet meetings (Chavez v. Presidential
Commission on Good Government , G.R. No.
2
130716, 9 December 1998);
v. Matters affecting national security and public order
(Chavez v. Public Estates Authority , G.R. No. 133250, 9 July
2002).
(b) Who are covered. — The following are covered by this executive order:
i. Senior officials of executive departments who in the judgment of the
department heads are covered by the executive privilege;
ii. Generals and flag officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and such
other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of Staff are covered by the
executive privilege;
iii. Philippine National Police (PNP) officers with rank of chief superintendent or
higher and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of the PNP are
covered by the executive privilege;
iv. Senior national security officials who in the judgment of the National Security
Adviser are covered by the executive privilege; and
v. Such other officers as may be determined by the President.

SECTION 3. Appearance of Other Public Officials Before