Art VI, Sec.

21: Power of Inquiry

Senate of the Philippines vs. Eduardo S. Ermita

G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006
Carpio-Morales, J.

FACTS:

On September 21-23, 2005, the Senate issued invitations to various officials of the
Executive Department for them to appear as resource speakers in a public hearing on the North
Rail Project. Likewise, on September 22, 2005, Senate Committee on National Defense and
Security invited various military officials and personnel as resource speakers in a public hearing
regarding the “Gloriagate Scandal” and the wire-tapping incidents.
On September 28, 2005, President Arroyo issued E.O. 464 which laid down provisions to
ensure adherence to the rule on Executive Privilege. Part of these provisions requires securing a
written consent from the President before any of the officials from the Executive Department can
present themselves before the Senate.
After this issuance, the officials invited were not able to come, invoking E.O. 464. The
Senate then, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against E.O. 464 contending that the
same was in violation of Section 21 and 22 of Article VI of the Constitution.

ISSUE:

Whether Executive Order 464 contravenes with the power of inquiry vested in the
Congress.

RULING:

Yes. The court ruled that when inquiry in which the Congress requires their appearance is
in aid of legislation, that appearance is mandatory.
As stated in Section 21 of Art VI, the Constitution vested the power of inquiry which is in
aid of legislation. This is different from the “question hour” as stated in Section 22 which is the
exercise of the Congress’ oversight function. It is an inquiry where the Congress seeks to be
informed on how department heads are implementing the laws it enacted. The court ruled that E.O.
464, specifically Section 1, can only be invoked when the inquiry is that of the “question hour”.
While the power of inquiry is mandatory, it is not absolute. Executive privilege can be
invoked by the executive when withholding the information is deemed necessary. But this
privilege is not a matter of who is covered but a matter of which information can be disclosed or
not. Thus, Section 2(b) and Section 3 of E.O. 464 was deemed void for enumerating the persons
who can invoke the said privilege, and for absolutely preventing the same from presenting
themselves before the congress without the President’s consent.