Scribd
Upload
55 views1 page

Senate of The Philippines, Et Al. V. Eduardo R. Ermita G.R. Nos. 169777, 169659, 169660, 169667, 169834 & 171246, April 20, 2006, CARPIO-Morales, J

The Senate of the Philippines filed a petition challenging the validity of Executive Order 464, which required executive officials to obtain presidential consent before appearing at congressional inquiries. The Supreme Court ruled that sections 2(b) and 3 of EO 464 were void because they broadly allowed the executive branch to evade congressional requests for information without asserting executive privilege. Congress has a right to information from the executive to aid legislation. The executive must assert privilege and explain why the information cannot be disclosed.

Uploaded by

Lebron James
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
55 views1 page

Senate of The Philippines, Et Al. V. Eduardo R. Ermita G.R. Nos. 169777, 169659, 169660, 169667, 169834 & 171246, April 20, 2006, CARPIO-Morales, J

The Senate of the Philippines filed a petition challenging the validity of Executive Order 464, which required executive officials to obtain presidential consent before appearing at congressional inquiries. The Supreme Court ruled that sections 2(b) and 3 of EO 464 were void because they broadly allowed the executive branch to evade congressional requests for information without asserting executive privilege. Congress has a right to information from the executive to aid legislation. The executive must assert privilege and explain why the information cannot be disclosed.

Uploaded by

Lebron James
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al. v. EDUARDO R.

ERMITA
G.R. Nos. 169777, 169659, 169660, 169667, 169834 & 171246, April 20, 2006, CARPIO-
MORALES, J.

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.

FACTS:

The Senate invited several executive officials as resource speakers for public hearings involving the
alleged overpricing of the North Rail Projects and the massive electoral fraud in the presidential
elections of May 2005. Thereafter, the President issued Executive Order No. (EO) 464 which
requires that all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure the
consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress. Because of the EO,
many of those who were invited were not able to go to the inquiry because of lack of approval from
the President. Hence, the Senate of the Philippines filed a petition to Supreme Court to question the
validity of EO 464.

ISSUE:

Whether EO 464 is void on the ground that it contravenes the power of inquiry vested in Congress.

RULING:
Sections 2(b) and 3 of EO 464 are void while sections 1 and 2 (a) are valid.

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.

Section 3 of E.O. 464 requires all official mentioned in Sec. 2 (b) to obtain the consent of the
president before they can appear before congress. This enumeration is broad and when the officials
concerned invokes this as a basis for not attending the inquiries there is already an implied claim of
privilege. Executive privilege is properly invoked in relation to specific categories of information
and not to categories of person.

Sections 2(b) and 3 of E.O. 464 are void because they are too broad and would frustrate the power
of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation because it allows the executive branch to evade
congressional requests for information without need of clearly asserting a right to do so and or pro-
offering its reasons therefor.

You might also like