The case involves the North Luzon Railways Corporation’s railway project and issues regarding wiretapping by the ISAFP and the fertilizer scam. In 2005, the Senate Committees invited various Executive Department and AFP officials to a hearing, but Executive Secretary Ermita sought a postponement, which was denied. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo then issued Executive Order (EO) 464, requiring Executive Department heads to obtain presidential consent before appearing before Congress.
The case involves the North Luzon Railways Corporation’s railway project and issues regarding wiretapping by the ISAFP and the fertilizer scam. In 2005, the Senate Committees invited various Executive Department and AFP officials to a hearing, but Executive Secretary Ermita sought a postponement, which was denied. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo then issued Executive Order (EO) 464, requiring Executive Department heads to obtain presidential consent before appearing before Congress.
The case involves the North Luzon Railways Corporation’s railway project and issues regarding wiretapping by the ISAFP and the fertilizer scam. In 2005, the Senate Committees invited various Executive Department and AFP officials to a hearing, but Executive Secretary Ermita sought a postponement, which was denied. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo then issued Executive Order (EO) 464, requiring Executive Department heads to obtain presidential consent before appearing before Congress.
The case involves the North Luzon Railways Corporation’s railway project and issues regarding wiretapping by the ISAFP and the fertilizer scam. In 2005, the Senate Committees invited various Executive Department and AFP officials to a hearing, but Executive Secretary Ermita sought a postponement, which was denied. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo then issued Executive Order (EO) 464, requiring Executive Department heads to obtain presidential consent before appearing before Congress.
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
Senate vs.
Ermita, G.R. No. 169777 July 14, 2006
Facts: The case involves the North Luzon Railways Corporation's railway project in collaboration with the China National Machinery and Equipment Group and issues concerning the wiretapping activities of the ISAFP and the fertilizer scam. On September 29, 2005, the Senate Committees invited various Executive Department and AFP officials to a hearing. Prior to the hearing, Executive Secretary Ermita requested a postponement to allow officials more time to prepare, but the Senate denied this request. On September 28, 2005, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued Executive Order (EO) 464, mandating that executive department heads secure the President’s consent before appearing before Congress. Consequently, Ermita communicated that the officials would not attend the Senate hearing due to the lack of consent. Despite this, some AFP officials, notably Col. Balutan and Brig. Gen. Gudani, attended the hearing and faced court martial for their actions, leading to the petitions filed by the Senate. Issues: 1. Does EO 464 contravene the power of inquiry vested in Congress? 2. Does EO 464 violate the public's right to information on matters of public concern? 3. Did the respondents commit grave abuse of discretion by implementing EO 464 prior to its publication? Answer: Yes. Law Principle: According to Section 21, Article VI of the Philippine Constitution, Congress has the inherent power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. Analysis: The Supreme Court established that EO 464 indeed infringes upon Congress's power of inquiry. The Court emphasized that the ability of the Senate to access information is crucial for legislative purposes and that the Senate possesses standing to challenge EO 464. The power of inquiry extends to the executive branch, and the Senate's ability to compel testimony is vital for its legislative function. Furthermore, the Court recognized that the public has a right to information, which EO 464 effectively obstructed. The implementation of EO 464 without publication violated the due process requirement that mandates transparency in government actions affecting public interest. Conclusion: Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that EO 464 is unconstitutional, as it unlawfully restricts Congress's inquiry power, infringes on the public’s right to information, and lacks due process since it was implemented without prior publication. The Court invalidated the sections of EO 464 that pertained to the executive's privilege, emphasizing that such privileges must be claimed explicitly and cannot be assumed.
