Senate vs Ermita

GR 169777
April 20, 2006
Facts: On September 29, 2005, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued EO 464,
which required all heads of departments of the executive branch to secure consent
from the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress. Indicating
Executive privilege and the confidentiality that is fundamental to the operation of
the government and the separation of powers.
Between September 2005 and February 2006, Several Committees of the Senate
issued invitations to various officials of the Executive Department for them to
appear, as resource speakers in a public hearing on the railway project of the North
Luzon Railways Corporation with the China National Machinery and Equipment
Group, the Wiretapping activity of the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, and the Fertilizer scam.
Col. Balutan and Brig. Gen. Gudani testified before legislative inquiries regarding the
Wiretapping activity without PGMA's approval and were subsequently relieved from
their military posts.
Several Petitioners, including the senate, pray for the TRO of EO 464, due to it
infringing on Section 21 and 22 of Article VI of the Constitution.
ISSUE: WON EO464 contravenes the power of inquiry vested in congress.
Held: Yes. The Legislative department has the constitutional power of inquiry. They
are in the form of Question Hour (Section 22 of Article VI), and In Aid of Legislation
(Section 21 of Article VI). EO 464 bars the Legislative Department from exercising
the power to inquire from Department Heads and other Officials by their merely
invoking EO464 and lack of consent from the President. The executive privilege that
the department heads and other officials are entitled to are regarding privileged
information, i.e. Presidential Conversations, Correspondences, and discussions in
closed-door cabinet meetings, military and diplomatic secrets and those affecting
national security, and information on investigations of crimes by law enforcement
agencies before the prosecution of the accused were exempted from the right to
information. In regard to Section 1 of EO464 limited in their application only
coincide with Section 22 of Article VI wherein Congress may only request their
appearance. While Section 21 of Article VI has a mandatory nature due to the
inquiry being in aid of legislation, executive privilege although may be invoked,
must be through a valid claim not just by mere fact that they are department heads.
Executive privilege does not encompass persons, only specific categories of
information. The requiring of consent from the president mandated by Section 2(b)
and 3 of EO464, is in determination if the information requested is privileged in
nature and that lacking the consent implies that the information being inquired is
privileged. Instead of providing reasons expressing the privileged nature of
information, department heads can merely invoke EO464 and the lack of consent.
This disrupts the constitutionally granted power of congress to inquire from the

department heads in aid of legislation. Section 2(b) and 3 of EO464 are therefore
deemed unconstitutional and invalidated.