Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
PONENTE: Carpio-Morales, J.
DOCTRINE: Non-legislative powers: Question Hour
NATURE: Special Civil Actions in the SC. Certiorari and Prohibition.
FACTS:
Even in the early history of republican thought, it has been recognized that the
head of government may keep certain information confidential in pursuit of the
public interest. However, the fact that the power to withhold information lends
itself to abuse, hence, the necessity to guard it zealously.
(1) The present consolidated petitions alleged that the President has
abused its power by issuing EO 464 on Sept. 28, 2005; thus, praying
that it be declared null and void for being unconstitutional.
(2) The Court, in resolving the controversy, stated that there is a
presumption of constitutionality since the issuance came from a coequal branch of government. Once the order is found to indeed by
violative of the Constitution, it is duty-bound to declare it so; because
the Constitution, being the highest law of the land, must prevail over
any government issuance.
(3) In the exercise of its legislative power, the Senate through various
Committees conducts inquiries or investigations, which call for the
attendance of officials and employees of the Executive Dept., bureaus
and offices (including those in GOCCs, AFP, and PNP.
(4) [NORTHRAIL ISSUE] Thus, the Senate Committee invited various
officials of the Executive Dept. to appear as resource speakers in a
public hearing on Sept. 29 on the railway project of the NorthRail
Project (North Luzon Railways Corp. with the China National
Machinery and Equipment Group,) sparked by Sen. Enrile urging the
Senate to investigate the alleged overpricing and other unlawful
provisions of the NorthRail Project contract.
Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita requested for a
postponement of hearing in order to give officials ample time and
opportunity to study and prepare for the issues to help Senate
Committee on its investigation. Said request was to no avail bec.
Senate President Drilon said it was sent belatedly and that
preparations and arrangements, and notices to all resource
persons were already completed.
President of North Luzon Railways Corp. also requested
postponement or cancellation until a copy of the report of the UP
Law Center on the contract agreements relative to the project had
been secured.
(9) Despite all the notices received, the investigation pushed through w only 2
AFP officials in attendance. For disobedience to Pres. Arroyos order not to
testify before legislative inquiries without her approval, both were relieved
from their military posts and made to face court martial proceedings.
(10) As to NorthRail project hearing, Exec. Secretary Ermita and NorthRail
President sent personal regrets, citing EO 464.
(11) On Oct 3, 2003, 3 petitions challenging the constitutionality of EO 464 were
docked. A series of petitions subsequently followed (#4-6):
1. GR 169659 petitioners party-list Bayan Muna, COURAGE
(organization of governmental employees) and CODAL (Counsels
for the Defense of Liberties) claim EO 464 to be unconstitutional;
a. Bayan Muna Right as a political party entitled to
participation in governance.
b. Satur Ocampo, et al Rights and duties as members of
the Congress to conduct investigation in aid of legislation
and conduct oversight functions in the implementation of
laws
c. COURAGE Tenure of its members in public office is
predicated on and threatened by submission to the
requirement of EO should they be summoned to Congress;
Right to information and transparent governance.
2. GR
No.
169660
-
Chavez
claimed
constitutional
rights
as
taxpayer,
citizen,
and
law
practitioner
claims
constitutional
rights
are
violated
3. GR
No.
169667
Alternative
Law
Groups
(ALG)
claimed
right
to
information
of
the
public
is
denied
by
EO
464
4. GR
No.169777
On
Oct.
11,
2005,
petitioner
Senate
filed
petition,
claiming
that
EO
464
has
prevented
the
exercise
of
the
power
of
the
Senate
to
perform
investigations
in
aid
of
legislation
5. GR
No.
169834
On
Oct
14,
2005,
PDP-LABAN
alleged
that
EO
464
hampers
the
legislative
agenda
of
its
members
in
Congress,
particularly
in
the
conduct
of
investigations
in
aid
of
legislation
6. GR
No.171246
On
Feb
13,
2006,
Cadiz
and
incumbent
members
of
the
Boards
of
Governors
of
the
Integrated
Bar
of
the
Phils.
(IBP)
invoked
the
right
to
information
of
the
public,
which
is
allegedly
denied
by
EO
464.
As
petitions
were
being
filed,
Senate
continued
to
hold
several
hearings
inviting
military
officers,
cabinet
officials,
and
other
officials;
all
to
no
avail
due
to
lack
of
clearance
from
President
pursuant
to
EO
464.
(12) All the petitioners pray for the issuance of a TRO enjoining respondents
from implementing, enforcing, and observing EO 464.
ISSUES:
W/N Attendance in a Question Hour is mandatory. (NO)
W/N Sec 1 and 3 of EO 464 requiring the department heads covered by them to
secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before Congress are
VALID. (YES)
HELD
(*#1 is semi-irrelevant to Question Hour, but kind of important in case. Skip as you
wish.)
(1) Before anything else, Court must determine W/N Court can validly exercise power
of judicial review. Requisites are:
a. Actual case or controversy
b. Legal standing of person challenging (personal and substantial interest)
c. Question of constutionality must be raised at earliest opportunity
d. Issue on constitutionality must be the list mota of the case
Case only discusses first 2 requisites; last 2 omitted.
Legal Standing
Senate and party list representatives (Bayan Muna, CODAL and COURAGE):
Have substantial and direct interest in the outcome of the case as EO 464 infringes
on their constitutional rights and duties as members of Congress to conduct
investigation in aid of legislation and conduct oversight functions in the
implementing of laws
Chavez and ALG: Have standing because a public right is involved and the mere
fact that they are citizens satisfies the requirement of personal interest
PDP-Laban: Bereft of standing to file its petition because they just have
generalized interest which it shares with the rest of the political parties; No
concrete injury.
The Senate has a fundamental right essential not only for intelligent public decisionmaking in a democratic system, but more especially for sound legislation. EO allegedly
stifles the ability of the members of Congress to access information that is crucial to
law-making.
Legislators have standing to maintain inviolate the prerogative, powers, and privileges
vested by the Constitution in their office and allowed to question validity of any official
action infringing their prerogatives as legislators.
*Rule of Sec 21: When the inquiry in which Congress requires their appearance
is in aid of legislation under Section 21, the appearance is mandatory for the
same reasons stated in Arnault. In fine, the oversight function of Congress may
be facilitated by compulsory process only to the extent that it is performed in
pursuit of legislation. This is consistent with the intent discerned from the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission.
*Power of Inquiry under Sec 21: Ultimately, the power of Congress to compel
the appearance of executive officials under Section 21 and the lack of it under
Section 22 find their basis in the principle of separation of powers. While the
executive branch is a co-equal branch of the legislature, it cannot frustrate the
power of Congress to legislate by refusing to comply with its demands for
information. When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for
department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege
C. Section 1 and 3 of EO 464 both require the officials covered by them to
secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before Congress.
Section 1 is grounded on Sec 22, Art 6 (Question Hour)
Sec 1 of E.O. 464, in view of its specific reference to Section 22 of Article VI of
the Constitution and the absence of any reference to inquiries in aid of
legislation, must be construed as limited in its application to appearances of
department heads in the question hour contemplated in said Section 22, but could
not be applied to appearances of department heads in inquiries in aid of
legislation; The requirement to secure presidential consent under Section 1,
limited as it is only to appearances in the question hour, is valid on its face.
The framers of the 1987 Constitution removed the mandatory nature of such
appearance during the question hour in the present Constitution so as to conform
more fully to a system of separation of powers. To that extent, the question hour,
as it is presently understood in this jurisdiction, departs from the question period
of the parliamentary system. That department heads may not be required to
appear in a question hour does not, however, mean that the legislature is rendered
powerless to elicit information from them in all circumstances. In fact, in light of
the absence of a mandatory question period, the need to enforce Congress right
to executive information in the performance of its legislative function becomes
more imperative.
SUMMARY: In a Question Hour, information is not imperative; therefore, only
attendance by department heads is discretionary/voluntary, pursuant to Art 6 Sec
22. Further, pursuant to EO 464 Sec 1, requires officials to secure the consent of
the President prior to appearing before Congress.
WHEREFORE, Sec 1 and 2(a) are VALID.