G.R. Nos. 169777, 169659, 169660, 169667, 169834 & 171246.
CARPIO MORALES, J.
Facts
Senate Committees, conducts inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation which call for the attendance of the following:
- Officials and employees of the executive department, bureaus, and offices including those employed in GOCCs,
- The AFP, and the
- PNP
On September 2005, the Senate invited several official in relation to investigations for the following:
- North Rail Project
- Wiretapping incident of the Philippines (invitations for AFP Officials; Gudani vs Senga case)
- Fertilizer Fund Scam
- Budget hearings
Executive Secretary requested for the postponement of the public hearings to allow officials to prepare; the Senate did not accede to the request. PGMA then issued EO No. 464 prohibiting the appearance of government officials, PNP and AFP officials without prior consent from the President.
The content of E.O. No. 464 follows:
- Section 1. All heads of departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress, pursuant to Sec. 22, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution and honoring the separation of powers.
- Section 2(a). Defines the nature and scope of Executive Privilege.
- Section 2(b). Identified the persons covered by the Executive Privilege.
- Section 3. Provides that all public officials enumerated in Section 2(b) shall secure consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress. Purpose stated: (1) ensure the observance of the principle of separation of powers; (2) adherence to the rule on executive privilege; (3) respect for the rights of public officials appearing in inquiries in aid of legislation.
Despite issuance of E.O. No. 464, the public hearing proceeded. Only two AFP officials attended: Col. Balutan and Brig. Gen. Gudani, as a result of this, the two were relieved from military service and faced court martial proceedings for violation of direct order.
The petitioners question the validity of the issuance, in that:
- As to members of the Congress. It impinges on their rights and prevents them from fulfilling their obligations (i.e. to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation and perform their oversight function;
- As to legislators. It constitutes concealment of matters that are of public interest;
- It is a violation of the citizen’s constitutional right to information on matters involving public interest;
- It shouldn’t have effect not having been duly published in the Official Gazette or newspaper of general circulation.
Issues, Ruling and Discussion
1. Do the petitioners have legal standing?
Yes. The petitioners have legal standing, except PDP-LABAN.
The Senate and Party-List representatives are proper parties to the case since being members of the Congress, since it is in their interest to maintain inviolate prerogative, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in their office.
In the same way, the political party, Bayan Muna, being granted seats in the Congress and allowed to participate in the legislative process, have the same interest.
Chavez and ALG as citizens and members of the Bar has standing in the case notwithstanding the lack of direct and personal interest as it has been held that when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest.
PDP-Laban on the other hand, is bereft of standing for failure to satisfy conditions of the ground invoke, being an issue of transcendental importance.
2. Is there an actual case or controversy?
Yes. There an actual case or controversy.
The absence of invited officials is enough to constitute actual case or controversy as there has been deprivation of the Congress of the ability to properly perform their duty.
It is immaterial whether the President deliberately withheld her consent to prevent the officials from testifying, it is enough that by reason the issuance, these said officials had already been absent to set public hearings.
3. Does the congress have the power to make the subject inquiries?
Yes. The congress has the power to make the subject inquiries
The power of inquiry in inherent to the power to legislate. It is further expressly granted under Sec. 21, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution. As held in the case of Arnault, the power of inquiry — with process to enforce it — is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.
The ‘power to enforce’ it carries the ability of the Congress to compel the disclosure of information it deems relevant to the inquiry. And subsequently, to hold the officials in contempt for deliberate refusal to render appropriate response.
There is a safeguard provided however, saying the inquiries in aid of legislation should be made in accordance with the Senate or House’s duly published rules of procedure, as a matter of due process. Further, VI(21) provided that rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries be respected.
NOTE: Executive Privilege is the power of the Government to withhold information from the public, the courts, and the Congress.
The executive privilege grants concessions to the President for non-disclosure to public of certain information of a sensitive character. It is hinged on the fact that confidentiality in some areas is necessary for the effective discharge of the President’s function. This is rooted deeply in the doctrine of separation of powers. Among the types of information covered by the executive privilege were: (1) Military and diplomatic secrets; (2) documents integral to an appropriate exercise of the executive’ domestic decisional and policy making functions; and (3) Foreign relations.
Information exempt from disclosure under the executive privilege is of extraordinary character, thus, this indicates that the presumption inclines heavily against executive secrecy and in favor of disclosure.
4. Is Section 1 of E.O. 464 valid?
Yes. Section 1 of E.O. 464 is valid.
The requirement then to secure presidential consent under Section 1, limited as it is only to appearances in the question hour, is valid on its face. This is gleaned from the restriction of its application to department heads, the express mention of Sec. 22, and lack of reference to inquiries in aid of legislation. It is valid, and a mere reiteration of Sec. 22, however, it cannot be made to apply for summons regarding inquiries in aid of legislation.
Sec. 21 and Sec. 22 of Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, while complementary and closely related pertains to distinct functions and powers of the Congress. Sec. 21 pertains to inquiries in aid of legislation. By virtue of this, the Congress, through special committees, may compel the attendance of certain officials for investigative proceedings in furtherance of its lawmaking function. Deliberate refusal of witnesses called to the end that the Congress is hampered from fulfilling its function is a ground to hold such person in contempt. The safeguards provided by the Constitution is that the inquiry should be made in accordance with duly published rules of proceedings and due respect should be accorded to the persons called. When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege. They are not exempt by the mere fact that they are department heads.
Sec. 22 pertains in question hour. Whereby, the Congress cannot compel the attendance of heads of departments, their attendance may only be requested – discretionary. This is exercised in furtherance of the Congress’ oversight function where it looks at the status to the execution of the laws issued by it. This is made non-mandatory in conformance with the separation of powers.
5. Are Sections 2 and 3 valid?
No. Sections 2 and 3 are not valid.
Section 2(b): This requires officials, enumerated to secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either house of Congress. It involves officials who in the judgment of the heads of offices are covered by the executive privilege. EO No. 64 in applying the executive privilege is a misuse of the doctrine. It applies to categories of information, not categories of people. However, the Court construed this as information in the possession of people enumerated therein. This, to the Court amounts to an implied claim of privilege. The validity of which must be determined by the Congress on a case to case basis and will depend upon the ground invoked, and context or circumstance of such invocation. The claim of executive privilege must be accompanied by the specific allegation of the basis thereof. The basis need not be so specific as to amount to disclosure of the sensitive information, but it is imperative that the Congress knows why the executive considers the requested information privileged.
Thus, for lack of sufficient basis in impliedly invoking the executive privilege, Sec. 2(b) is invalid. For the same reason, Section 3 is also invalid.
Section 2(a) is construed as a mere expression of opinion by the President regarding the nature and scope of executive privilege. Thus, not invalidated.
6. May the petitioners invoke their right to information?
Yes. The petitioners may invoke their right to information
While in its face, E.O. No. 464 is concerned only with the demands of Congress for the appearance of executive officials in the hearings conducted by it, it is in substance also concerned with the demands of citizens for information pursuant to their constitutional right to information on matters of public concern. Given the nature of the inquiry, the public’s right to information can be validly invoked.
7. Was E.O. No. 454 properly implemented given that it is yet to be published?
No. E.O. No. 454 was not properly implemented given that it is yet to be published.
E.O. 464 has a direct effect on the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. It is, therefore, a matter of public interest which members of the body politic may question before this Court. Due process thus requires that the people should have been apprised of this issuance before it was implemented. Further, E.O. No. 464 interferes with the substantial right of private individuals, necessitating more the need for publication.
Dispositive
WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTLY GRANTED. Sections 2(b) and 3 of Executive Order No. 464 (series of 2005), “Ensuring Observance of the Principle of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the Rule on Executive.
Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under the Constitution, and For Other Purposes,” are declared VOID. Sections 1 and 2(a) are, however, VALID.
SO ORDERED.