Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
169777)Digest
Amor Legis
Providing Resources for Future Lawyers
Home Constitutional Law Criminal Law 1 Persons and Family Relations Basic Legal Ethics Case Digest
Facts:
This case is regarding the railway project of the North Luzon Railways Corporation with the China National Machinery and JANINA ROSE JAVELOSA
Equipment Group as well as the Wiretapping activity of the ISAFP, and the Fertilizer scam. Follow 6
In aid of Legislation:
Contact Janina
The Legislatures power to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation is expressly recognized in Article 6, section21 of the 1987
for any
Constitution, which reads:
http://amorlegis.blogspot.com/2015/09/senatevsermitagrno169777digest.html 1/3
3/13/2017 AmorLegis:Senatevs.Ermita(G.R.No.169777)Digest
comments,
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
suggestions,
respected.
violent
The power of inquiry in aid of legislation is inherent in the power to legislate. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or
effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change. And where
reactions, etc.
the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information, recourse must be had to others who do possess it.
But even where the inquiry is in aid of legislation, there are still recognized exemptions to the power of inquiry, which exemptions
Name
fall under the rubric of executive privilege. This is the power of the government to withhold information from the public, the
courts, and the Congress. This is recognized only to certain types of information of a sensitive character. When Congress exercise
its power of inquiry, the only way for department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege. They are
Email *
not exempt by the mere fact that they are department heads. Only one official may be exempted from this power -- the President.
Section 2 & 3 of E.O. 464 requires that all the public officials enumerated in Section 2(b) should secure the consent of the Message *
President prior to appearing before either house of Congress. The enumeration is broad. In view thereof, whenever an official
invokes E.O.464 to justify the failure to be present, such invocation must be construed as a declaration to Congress that the
President, or a head of office authorized by the President, has determined that the requested information is privileged.
The letter sent by the Executive Secretary to Senator Drilon does not explicitly invoke executive privilege or that the matter on
Send
which these officials are being requested to be resource persons falls under the recognized grounds of the privilege to justify their
absence. Nor does it expressly state that in view of the lack of consent from the President under E.O. 464, they cannot attend the
hearing. The letter assumes that the invited official possesses information that is covered by the executive privilege. Certainly, 0
Congress has the right to know why the executive considers the requested information privileged. It does not suffice to merely
declare that the President, or an authorized head of office, has determined that it is so.
The claim of privilege under Section 3 of E.O. 464 in relation to Section 2(b) is thus 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.
When an official is being summoned by Congress on a matter which, in his own judgment, might be covered by executive
privilege, he must be afforded reasonable time to inform the President or the Executive Secretary of the possible need for invoking
the privilege. This is necessary to provide the President or the Executive Secretary with fair opportunity to consider whether the
matter indeed calls for a claim of executive privilege. If, after the lapse of that reasonable time, neither the President nor the
Executive Secretary invokes the privilege, Congress is no longer bound to respect the failure of the official to appear before
Congress and may then opt to avail of the necessary legal means to compel his appearance.
Wherefore, the petitions are partly granted. Sections 2(b) and 3 of E.O. 464 are declared void. Section 1(a) are however valid.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Enteryourcomment...
Publish Preview Notifyme
http://amorlegis.blogspot.com/2015/09/senatevsermitagrno169777digest.html 2/3
3/13/2017 AmorLegis:Senatevs.Ermita(G.R.No.169777)Digest
http://amorlegis.blogspot.com/2015/09/senatevsermitagrno169777digest.html 3/3