Senate v Ermita

G.R. No. 169777 April 20, 2006

Facts:
On September 2005, the Committee of the Senate issued invitations to various public officials of the
Executive Department to appear as a resource speaker in a public hearing, an investigation of the
alleged overpricing and other unlawful provisions of the contract covering the North Rail Project.
The Senate Committee on National Defense also issued invitations to different AFP officials to
attend as resource speaker in a public hearing regarding the electoral fraud in May 2005 Presidential
election, wire-tapping issue and gloriagate scandal. However, the AFP Chief of Staff requested for
the postponement of the public hearing due to operational situation. On September 28, 2005, Jose L.
Cortez, the president of North Luzon Railway Corp. requested for the postponement of the public
hearing. Likewise, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita requested for the postponement of the public
hearing on North Rail Project to give the officials of enough time to prepare. However, Senate
President Drilon did not accept the request. On the same day, the President issued Executive Order
No. 464 “Ensuring Observance of the Principle of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the Rule of
Executive Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Aid on
Legislation under the Constitution and for other Purposes”. Senate President Drilon received a copy
of E.O 464 and a letter informing him that the officials invited cannot appear to the meeting since
they have not secured consent from the President. Gen. Senga also invoked E.O 464 stating that no
approval has been granted to the AFP officers. However, Brig. Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan pushed
through the public hearing. They were relieved from service for the defying the President’s order.
Executive Secretary Ermita cited E.O 464 causing officials not to attend the North Rail Project
hearing.6 petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of E.O 464.
Issue:
W.O.N Executive Order No. 464 contravenes the power of inquiry vested in Congress
Ruling:
In Section 21, Art VI of the Constitution, the power of inquiry of the Congress is expressly
recognized. It would be contradicting to hold that it does not extend to the executive officials who are
most informed on the operations of Executive branch. However, there are exemptions which fall
under the executive privilege which exempts the Executive from disclosure requirements. Such
exemption is necessary to maintain governmental operations and based from the separation of
powers.
Furthermore, a distinction has been made between aid of legislation and question hour. The
attendance is discretionary in the question hour while it is compulsory to inquiries in aid of
legislation. In the separation of powers, the Congress has the right to obtain information from any
source including the officials of departments and agencies in the Executive branch. If the executive
privilege is invoked, the Congress has the right to know why the requested information is considered
privileged for due respect for a co-equal branch and to avoid obstruction of the power of the
Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.