University of the Philippines and Ateneo de Manila University cited the Supreme

Court ruling that affirms the Senate’s, and even the House of Representatives’,
authority to question members of the executive branch in aid of legislation.

it was the President that was creating “an unnecessary constitutional crisis in the
middle” of the COVID-19 pandemic. They issued the reminder that in Senate v.
Ermita, the Supreme Court ruled that the appearance of members of the executive
branch was “mandatory” if demanded in congressional inquiries. (“While the
executive branch is a coequal branch of the legislature, it cannot frustrate the power
of Congress to legislate by refusing to comply with its demands for information,” the
high court said.) They pointed out, correctly: “If the President has nothing to hide,
there is no reason for him to stop the investigation.”

Mr. Duterte’s orders to Cabinet members and the police and military as
unconstitutional and illegal.

described the Senate inquiry as “a witch-hunt” and “a persecution” conducted “in

aid of election,” and declared his principal as empowered to block appearances in
congressional hearings in the course of “exercising the inherent police power of the
state to promote public health.”

President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s directives to executive branch officials, police, and the
military to ignore the Senate’s probe on the use of pandemic funds are unconstitutional.

Mr. Duterte’s orders go against the separation of powers of the three branches of
government — executive, legislative, and judicial — under the Constitution, which in
turn “upsets our system of checks and balances.”

the directives are “detrimental” to Filipinos who demand public accountability from
officials and others involved in the alleged deficiencies in pandemic spending and is a
“disservice to the principle of civilian supremacy over the military.”

Filipino people “deserve a full and fair accounting” of how the government spent
taxpayers’ money.
IBP urges Duterte to withdraw order
barring Cabinet from Senate inquiry
the importance of cooperation between the two branches of government, saying that corruption has
deprived Filipinos of an effective health-care system that could have saved lives and provided better
financial assistance to households and businesses in distress during this pandemic.

It is imperative for our government to fight corruption, wherever it maybe, and to assist, rather than
obstruct, any investigation that seeks to identify the root of corruption and the perpetrators behind
them

“We, thus, urge the President to reconsider his decision to bar his Cabinet from attending the Senate
investigation on the alleged irregularities in the Department of Health [DOH] spending related to the
Covid-19 pandemic program. It is only by granting our Congress free access to information that we can
empower them to formulate policies that fully reflect the will of our people,” IBP said.

the Supreme Court has previously ruled that while the Executive branch is a co-equal branch of the
legislature, it cannot hinder the power of Congress to legislate by refusing to comply with its demands
for information.

“A transparent government is one of the hallmarks of a truly Republican state. The only way to succeed
is for all branches of government to work together in combating corruption and abuse.”

Duterte’s orders barring Cabinet members from appearing

before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and for the police
and military to ignore the warrants of arrest that the Senate
might issue in response, are unconstitutional.
two directives “upsets the systems of checks and balances and transgresses the doctrine of separation
of powers” among the three co-equal branches of the government.

Duterte’s circular was likewise in “total contravention” to the Supreme Court’s 2006 Ermita ruling,
where the High Court said that when the inquiry in which Congress requires Cabinet officials'
appearance is in aid of legislation, the appearance is mandatory

this has all the red flags of unconstitutionality. It only covers the Senate, only covers the blue ribbon
[committee]. It doesn’t cover other blue ribbon hearings, but only this blue ribbon hearing.”
 Philippine Bar Association expressed grave concern over Duterte's
moves, saying it "upsets our systems of checks and balances and
transgresses the doctrine of separation of powers" among the three
branches of government. It urged Duterte to immediately recall his order

Medialdea’s memo noting that the Senate panel hearings have been practically preventing invited
government officials from performing their functions and duties.

Supreme Court jurisprudence, the senator stressed “the legislature can conduct inquiries not
specifically to enact laws, but specifically to oversee the implementation of laws. This is the mandate of
various legislative oversight committees which admittedly can conduct inquiries on the status of the
implementation of laws.”

In the exercise of the legislative oversight function, the senator said there is always the potential, even if
not expressed or predicted, that the oversight committees may discover the need to improve the laws
they oversee and thus recommend amendment of the laws.

The President's order prohibiting Cabinet and executive officials from

attending the Senate investigation in aid of legislation into the
Procurement Service of the Department of Budget and Management
(PS-DBM) transactions with Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corp. is
“clearly” unconstitutional,
The President cannot prevent members of the executive branch from testifying in the PS-DBM and
Pharmally hearings in aid of legislation. The Supreme Court ruled as such in a similar case in 2006

Senate versus Ermita where the Supreme Court (SC) ruled in 2006 that when the inquiry in which
Congress requires their appearance is in aid of legislation, the appearance is mandatory.

In the landmark ruling, the SC ruled: “(W)hen the inquiry in which Congress requires
their appearance is "in aid of legislation" under Section 21, the appearance is
mandatory.”

the Congress power of inquiry is expressly recognized in Section 21 of Article 6 of

the Constitution which states that “the Senate or the House of Representatives or
any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in
accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons
appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.”
“Consistent with the Supreme Court ruling, only a valid claim of executive privilege
can exempt department heads from answering questions in congressional inquiries
in aid of legislation. They are not exempt by the mere fact that they are department
heads,” Drilon said.

Executive privilege, the SC stated, refers to “matters involving national security,

military or diplomatic secrets, or conversations and correspondences between the
President and his officials.”

The former executive and justice secretary said executive privilege is limited to
certain types of information as laid down in EO 464 and ruled in Chavez versus
Public Estates Authority, which include presidential conversations, correspondences,
and discussions in closed-door Cabinet meetings.

The court also held that information on 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, he noted.

“Cabinet officials cannot cite executive privilege to refuse attendance in the Blue
Ribbon hearing and dodge questions necessary to ferret out the truth in the
government’s anomalous transactions with Pharmally. This is an investigation in aid
of legislation. It does not inquire into conversations between the President and
executive officials, hence executive privilege cannot be invoked.” Drilon said.

in Ermita case: “While executive privilege is a constitutional concept, a claim

thereof may be valid or not depending on the ground invoked to justify it and the
context in which it is made. Noticeably absent is any recognition that executive
officials are exempt from the duty to disclose information by the mere fact of being
executive officials. Indeed, the extraordinary character of the exemptions indicates
that the presumption inclines heavily against executive secrecy and in favor of
disclosure.”

The court, in the case of Arnault versus Nazareno held that “the power of inquiry –
with process to enforce it – is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the
legislative function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the
absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended
to effect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the
requisite information – which is not infrequently true – recourse must be had to
others who do possess it.

The doctrine in Arnault case applies to persons invited by the Senate Blue Ribbon
committee. No less than the SC recognized that “once an inquiry is established to
be within the jurisdiction of a legislative body to make, the investigating committee
has the power to require a witness to answer any question pertinent to that
inquiry” and the Senate can hold in contempt, a person who refuses to answer. If
the witness contends that the question is not pertinent to the subject matter of the,
then that is a matter which only the courts can decide.

In the present case, the Senate cited in contempt and detained Pharmally executive
Lincoln Ong due to evasiveness in answering questions of the Blue Ribbon
committee.

In upholding Congress’ contempt power, the court cited Sullivan versus Hill which
says: If the subject of investigation before the committee is within the range of
legitimate legislative inquiry and the proposed testimony of the witness called
relates to that subject, obedience, to its process may be enforced by the committee
by imprisonment.”

no respect for the rule of law, no separation of powers between

branches of government and no regard for due process,”
Duterte’s order is an abuse of his powers as commander-in-chief, stressing that he
does not have the carte blanche authority to prevent other branches of
government from performing their mandates.