SENATE vs. ERMITA (G.R.

169777 - April 20, 2006)

FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition proffer that the President has abused power by
issuing E.O. 464 Petitioners pray for its declaration as null and void for being unconstitutional. In
the exercise of its legislative power, the Senate of the Philippines, through its various Senate
Committees, conducts inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation which call for, inter alia,the
attendance of officials and employees of the executive department, bureaus, and offices
including those employed in GOCCs, the AFP, and the PNP. The Committee 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, others on the issues of massive
election fraud in the Philippine elections, wiretapping, and the role of military in the so-called
“Gloriagate Scandal”. Said officials were not able to attend due to lack of consent from the
President as provided byE.O. 464, Section 3 which requires all the public officials enumerated in
Section 2(b) to secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either house of
Congress.

ISSUE:
Is Section 3 of E.O. 464, which requires all the public officials, enumerated in Section 2(b) to
secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either house of Congress, valid
and constitutional?

RULING:
No. The enumeration in Section 2 (b) of E.O. 464 is broad and is covered by the executive
privilege.

APPLICATION:
The doctrine of executive privilege is premised on the fact that certain information must, as a
matter of necessity, be kept confidential in pursuit of the public interest. The privilege being, by
definition, an exemption from the obligation to disclose information, in this case to Congress, the
necessity must be of such high degree as to outweigh the public interest in enforcing that
obligation in a particular case.Congress undoubtedly has a right to information from the
executive branch whenever it is sought in aid of legislation. If the executive branch withholds
such information on the grounds that it is privileged, it must assert it and state the reason
therefore and why it must be respected.

CONCLUSION:
The infirm provisions of E.O. 464, however, allow the executive branch to evade congressional
requests for information without need of clearly asserting a right to do so and/or proffering its
reasons therefore. By the mere expedient of invoking said provisions, the power of Congress to
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is frustrated.
 ALMONTE vs. VASQUEZ (G.R. 169777 - April 20, 2006)

FACTS:
Ombudsman Vasquez required Rogado and Rivera of the Economic Intelligence and
Investigation Bureau (EIIB) to produce all documents relating to Personal Service Funds. 1988
and all evidence for the whole plantilla of EIIB for 1988. The subpoena ducestecum was issued
in connection with the investigation of funds representing savings from unfilled positions in the
EIIB which were legally disbursed. Almonte and Perezdenied the anomalous activities that
circulate around the EIIB office. They moved to quash the subpoena duces. They claim privilege
as an agency of the Government.

ISSUE:
Whether or not an Ombudsman can oblige the petitioners by virtue of subpoena duces tecum to
provide documents relating to personal service and salary vouchers ofEIIB employers.

RULING:
Yes. An Ombudsman can oblige the petitioners by virtue of subpoena ducestecum to provide
documents relating to personal service and salary vouchers of EIIBemployers.

APPLICATION:
A government privilege against disclosure is recognized with respect to state secrets bearing on
military, diplomatic and similar matters. This privilege is based upon public interest of such
paramount importance as in and of itself transcending the individual interests of a private
citizen, even though, as a consequence thereof, the plaintiff cannot enforce his legal rights.In
the case at bar, there is no claim that military or diplomatic secrets will be disclosed by the
production of records pertaining to the personnel of the EIIB. EIIB function is the gathering and
evaluation of intelligence reports and information regarding"illegal activities affecting the national
economy, such as, but not limited to, economic sabotage, smuggling, tax evasion, dollar
salting."

CONCLUSION:
Consequently while in cases which involve state secrets it may be sufficient to determine the
circumstances of the case that there is reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will
expose military matters without compelling production, no similar excuse can be made for
privilege resting on other considerations
 CHAVEZ vs. PEA (G.R. 169777 - April 20, 2006)

FACTS:
PEA is a government owned and controlled corporation which was tasked to reclaim land
including foreshore and submerged areas and to develop, improve, acquire, lease and sell any
and all kinds of lands owned , managed, and controlled by the government. PEA entered into a
Joint VentureAgreement (JVA) with AMARI, a private corporation, to develop some of its
reclaimed lands. The said JVA became subject to investigation for the reason that questions on
its legality occurred. Then renegotiations between PEA and AMARI happened which had
produced the Amended JVA. Petitioner Chavez filed a petition against PEA and AMARI
assailing the transfer of certain lands,reclaimed and still to be reclaimed by PEA to AMARI as
stated in the Amended JVA. The petitioner further prays that on constitutional and statutory
grounds, the renegotiated contract be declared null and void.

ISSUE:
Whether or not stipulations in the Amended Joint Venture Agreement for the transfer to
AMARIof certain lands, reclaimed or to be reclaimed, violate the constitution.

RULING:
The court declares the Amended Joint Venture Agreement null and void ab initio. The court
orders PEA and AMARI to enjoin from implementing the Amended JVA.

APPLICATION:
The Regalian doctrine is deeply implanted in our legal system. Foreshore and submerged areas
form part of the public domain and are inalienable. Lands reclaimed from foreshore and
submerged areas are also inalienable, unless converted pursuant to law into alienable or
disposable lands of public domain. Historically, lands reclaimed by the government are sui
generis, not available for sale to private parties unlike other alienable public lands. Reclaimed
lands retain their inherent potential as areas for public use or public service. Alienable lands of
public domain are to be distributed equitably among our ever growing population. To ensure
such equitable distribution, the 1973 and 1987 Constitution have barred private corporations
from acquiring any kind of alienable land of public domain.

CONCLUSION:
The Amended Joint Venture Agreement clearly violates Section 2, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution which prohibits the alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of
the public domain and Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits private
corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of public domain
 CHAVEZ vs. PCGG (G.R. 169777 - April 20, 2006)

FACTS:
Petitioner, invoking his right to information and the correlative duty of the state to disclose
publicly all its transactions involving the national interest, demands that respondent make public
any and all negotiations and agreements pertaining to PGCC’s task of recovering the Marcoses'
ill-gotten wealth. He claims that compromise on the alleged billions of ill-gotten wealth involves
an issue of paramount public interest.” since it has a debilitating effect on the country’s
economy” that would be greatly prejudicial to the national interest of the Filipino people. Hence,
the people in general have a right to know the transaction or deals being contrived and effected
by the government.

ISSUE:
Whether the constitutional right to information may prosper against respondents’ argument that
there should be “disclosed” proposed terms and conditions according to the Agreement.

RULING:
Yes. The PGCC, its officers, and other representatives should disclose sufficient public
information.

APPLICATION:
In this case, it is the respondent who is in the wrong. Here are the following restriction:
(1) National security matters and intelligence information;
(2) Trade sectors and banking transaction;
(3) Criminal matters; and
(4) Other confidential information.

CONCLUSION:
The petition has been dismissed.