Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Executive Order 464 Case
Executive Order 464 Case
Facts:
On September 21 to 23, 2005, the Committee of the Senate as a whole issued
invitations to various officials of the Executive Department and the AFP for
them to appear on September 29, 2005 as resource speakers on several hearings,
including:
a. Alleged overpricing of the North Rail Project,
b. Massive electoral fraud in the May 2005 elections
Wiretapping and Gloriagate scandal
However, Senate Pres. Franklin Drilon received letters from AFP Chief of Staff
General Generoso S. Senga, President of the North Luzon Railways Corporation
Jose L. Cortes, Jr. and Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita requesting for
postponement of the hearings since requested officials would not be able to
attend. Drilon then replied that the hearings would go on as arrangements were
already made.
On September 28, 2005, the President issued E.O. 464, “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,” which, pursuant to Section 6 thereof, took effect immediately.
On the same date, Executive Secretary Ermita and Gen. Senga sent notices that
due to EO 464, invited officials were not authorized to attend the congressional
hearings as none were able to secure the consent of the president. Only Col.
Balutan and Brig. Gen. Gudani among all the AFP officials invited attended, and
for defying President Arroyo’s order, they were relieved from their military
posts and were made to face court martial proceedings.
Issues:
1. Whether E.O. 464 is valid and constitutional
2. Whether E.O. 464 contravenes the power of inquiry vested in Congress;
3. Whether E.O. 464 violates the right of the people to information on
matters of public concern; and
4. Whether respondents have committed grave abuse of discretion when they
implemented E.O. 464 prior to its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation.
-Because the provisions of E.O. 464, implies claims of privilege without any
specific basis to government officials, it allows the executive branch to evade
congressional requests for information without need of clearly asserting a right
to do so and/or proffering its reasons therefor. By the mere expedient of
invoking said provisions, the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation is frustrated. That is impermissible
-The doctrine of executive privilege is thus premised on the fact that certain
informations must, as a matter of necessity, be kept confidential in pursuit of
the public interest.
- the Court finds it essential to limit to the President the power to invoke the
privilege. The President may not authorize her subordinates to exercise such
power.
The claim of privilege under Section 3 of E.O. 464 in relation to Section 2(b)
is invalid per se. It is not asserted. It is merely implied. Instead
of providing precise and certain reasons for the claim, it merely invokes E.O.
464, coupled with an announcement that the President has not given her consent.
It is woefully insufficient for Congress to determine whether the withholding of
information is justified under the circumstances of each case. It severely
frustrates the power of inquiry of Congress.
A distinction was made between inquiries in aid of legislation and the question
hour. While attendance was meant to be discretionary in the question hour, it
was compulsory in inquiries in aid of legislation.
***The Congress has the right to obtain information from any source – even from
officials of departments and agencies in the executive branch.
Thus:
Congress 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 ground that it is privileged, it must so assert it and state
the reason therefor and why it must be respected.
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. Only one executive
official may be exempted from this power — the President on whom executive power
is vested, hence, beyond the reach of Congress except through the power of
impeachment.
Thus Congress may exert its power of inquiry, requiring attendance only with
hearings in aid of legislation, distinguishing it from the question hour.
3. Right to Information
As investigations in aid of legislation are generally conducted in public, any
executive issuance that would limit disclosures of information in such
investigations necessarily deprives the people of information which, being
presumed to be in aid of legislation, is presumed to be a matter 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.