MANILA, Philippines - Pardon me if the catechist in me should

come out, but there is so much confusion about EO 464 that I

thought the catechetical method might be the clearest approach.
So, here goes:
Q. Is Executive Order 464 still alive?
A. The Supreme Court in Senate v. Ermita said: Sections 2(b) and
3 of Executive Order No. 464 ... are declared VOID. Sections 1 and
2(a) are, however, VALID.
Q. What does the voided Sections 3 say?
A. It says: All public officials enumerated in Section 2 (b) hereof
shall secure prior consent of the President prior to appearing
before either House of Congress to ensure the 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 inquiries in aid of legislation.
Q. Who are the officials in Section 2(b) referred to in Section 3.
A. They are:
Senior officials of executive departments who in the judgment of
the department heads are covered by the executive privilege;
Generals and flag officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of Staff
are covered by the executive privilege;
Philippine National Police (PNP) officers with rank of chief
superintendent or higher and such other officers who in the
judgment of the Chief of the PNP are covered by the executive
privilege;
Senior national security officials who in the judgment of the
National Security Adviser are covered by the executive privilege;
and

Such other officers as may be determined by the President.

Q. Are there any officials whom the President may prevent from
testifying?
A. If the hearing is an inquiry in the exercise of congressional
oversight function under Article VI, Section 22, Department
Secretaries may not appear without the prior consent of the
President. This is repeated in Section 1 of EO 464 which the
Supreme Court declared valid.
If the hearing is in aid of legislation under Article VI, Section 21
of the Constitution, anyone, except the President and Justices of
the Supreme Court, may be summoned.
Q. If the President cannot use EO 464 to block the testimony of
officials enumerated in Section 2(b) above, can she still prevent
testimony?
A. Yes, by claiming that the testimony being sought is covered by
executive privilege.
Q. What is executive privilege?
A. It is the constitutionally recognized right of the President to
withhold certain types of information from Congress, the courts or
from the public.
Q. What types of information can be covered by executive
privilege?
A. Section 2(a) of EO 464, upheld as valid by the Supreme Court,
enumerates the following which are taken from earlier decisions:
1. Conversations and correspondence between the President and
the public official covered by this executive order
2. Military, diplomatic and other national security matters which
in the interest of national security should not be divulged;
3. Information between inter-government agencies prior to the

conclusion of treaties and executive agreements;

4. Discussion in closed-door Cabinet meetings;
5. Matters affecting national security and public order.
Q. Who may claim executive privilege?
A. Only the President or a high official who, after consultation with
the President, is authorized by her to claim the privilege.
Q. Must every claim of executive privilege based on the above
enumeration be honored?
A. No. The Court in Senate v. Ermita said that in determining the
validity of a claim of privilege, the question that must be asked is
not only whether the requested information falls within one of the
traditional privileges, but also whether that privilege should be
honored in a given procedural setting. Thus it is not for one
claiming executive privilege to unilaterally determine that a dulyissued Subpoena should be totally disregarded.
Q. Who then determines whether the claimed privilege should be
honored?
A. The Court. Thus, for instance, when the Nixon administration
claimed privilege for certain tapes about the Watergate break-in,
the Court, after looking at the claimed privilege behind closed
doors, held that the tapes were not covered by privilege and
should be released.
For this reason, our Court also said that Absent then a statement
of the specific basis of a claim of executive privilege, there is no
way of determining whether it falls under one of the traditional
privileges, or whether, given the circumstances in which it is
made, it should be respected. The lack of specificity renders an
assessment of the potential harm resulting from disclosure
impossible.
Q. What was the opening sentence of the Court in its decision on

EO 464?
A. A transparent government is one of the hallmarks of a truly
republican state.
Q. The President has formed a legal team to study what to do with
the appeal of the Bishops to abandon EO 464. What should they
say?
A. They should say, Madam President, read Senate v. Ermita and
obey it and thereby begin the process of your salvation.