COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS
Philippine Constitution, Article VI, Section 18
“There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex-
officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of the Representatives, elected
by each house on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and parties or
organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The Chairman of the
Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments
submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission
shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.”
COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS AND ITS FUNCTIONS
Philippine Constitution, Article VI, Section 19
“The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission Appointments shall be constituted within thirty days
after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall have been organized with the election of the
President and the Speaker. The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is
in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers and
functions as are herein conferred upon it.”
Cunanan v. Tan, GR L-19721. May 10, 1962, 5 SCRA 1
The Commission on Appointments is a creature of the Constitution. Although its membership is
confined to members of Congress, said Commission is independent of Congress. The powers of the
Commission do not come from Congress, but emanate directly from the Constitution. Hence, it is not
an agent of Congress. In fact, the functions of the Commission are purely executive in nature. In
order that the members of the Commission could properly discharge their duties as such, it is
essential that their tenure therein be provided with a certain measure of stability to insure the
necessary freedom of action.
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION
Philippine Constitution, Article VI, Section 18
“There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex-
officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of the Representatives, elected
by each house on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and parties or
organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The Chairman of the
Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments
submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission
shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.”
Daza vs Singson G.R. No. 86344. December 21, 1989
If by reason of successful election protests against members of a House, or of their expulsion from
the political party to which they belonged and/or of their affiliation with another political party, the ratio
in the representation of the political parties in the House is materially changed, the House is clothed
with authority to declare vacant the necessary number of seats in the Commission on Appointments
held by members of said House belonging to the political party adversely affected by the change and
then fill said vacancies in conformity with the Constitution.
New Rules of The Commission On Appointments
Chapter II Section 1. Composition Of The Commission On Appointments.
Within thirty (30) days after both Houses of Congress shall have organized themselves with the
election of the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Commission
on Appointments shall be constituted. It shall be composed of twelve (12) Senators and twelve (12)
members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list
system represented therein.
Guingona v. Gonzales 214 SCRA 789
A political party must have at least 2 elected senators for every seat in the Commission on
Appointments. Thus, where there are two or more political parties represented in the senate, a
political party/coalition with a single senator in the senate cannot constitutionally claim a seat in the
Commission on Appointments.
OFFICERS WHOSE APPOINTMENT IS SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION BY COMMISSION
Philippine Constitution Article VII Section 16.
The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the
heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of
the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments
are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to
appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the
President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress,
whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until after disapproval
by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.
Manalo v. Sistoza, GR 107369. Aug. 11, 1999, 312 SCRA 239
It is well-settled that only presidential appointments belonging to the first group of officers of the
government enumerated under Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution require the confirmation by
the Commission on Appointments. The appointments of respondent officers who are not within the
first category, need not be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.
Tarrosa vs. Singson
Congress cannot by law expand the power of confirmation of the Commission on Appointments and
require confirmation of appointments of other government officials not mentioned in the first sentence
of Section 16 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Sarmiento vs Mison 156 SCRA 549
The appointment of the Commissioner of Customs needs no confirmation by the CA because the
Commissioner of Customs is not among the officers mention in the first sentence of Sec. 16 Art. VII.
Quintos-Deles v. Committee on Constitutional Commissions, Commission on Appointments,
177 SCRA 259
The appointment of a sectoral representative by the President of the Philippines is specifically
provided for in Sec. 7, Art. XVIII of the Constitution. Thus, the appointment of a sectoral
representative falls under the Commission on Appointments.
Soriano III v. Lista, GR 153881. Mar. 24, 2003, 399 SCRA 437
The enumeration of appointments subject to confirmation by the CA under Section 16, Article VII of
the 1987 Constitution is exclusive. The clause “officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or
naval captain” refers to military officers alone.
Now that the PCG is under the DOTC and no longer part of the Philippine Navy or the Armed Forces
of the Philippines, the promotions and appointments of respondent officers of the PCG, or any PCG
officer from the rank of captain and higher for that matter, do not require confirmation by the CA.
Mary Concepcion Bautista v. Salonga, 172 SCRA 16
The appointment of the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights is not otherwise provided for
in the Constitution or in the law. Thus, there is no necessity for such appointment to be passed upon
by the Commission on Appointments.
Rufino v. Endriga, G.R. No. 113956, July 21, 2006
A statute cannot circumvent the constitutional provisions on the power of appointment by filling
vacancies in a public office through election by the co-workers in that office. This manner of filling
vacancies in public office has no constitutional basis. Thus, because the challenged section of the law
is unconstitutional, it is the President who shall appoint the trustees, by virtue of Sec. 16, Art. VII of
the Constitution which provides that the President has the power to appoint officers whose
appointments are not otherwise provided by law.
APPOINTMENT PROCESS
1. Nomination by the President
2. Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments
3. Issuance of the commission
4. Acceptance by the appointee
Lacson v. Romero, 84 Phil 740
An appointment is deemed complete only upon its acceptance. Pending such acceptance, which is
optional to the appointee, the appointment may still be validly withdrawn. Appointment to a public
office cannot be forced upon any citizen except for purposes of defense of the State under Sec.
4, Art. II, as an exception to the rule against involuntary servitude.
KINDS OF PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS
Permanent Appointments
Those extended to persons possessing the qualifications and the requisite eligibility and are thus
protected by the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.
Temporary Appointments
Are given to persons without such eligibility, revocable at will and without the necessity of just cause
or a valid investigation; made on the understanding that the appointing power has not yet decided on
a permanent appointee and that the temporary appointee may be replaced at any time a permanent
choice is made.
Valencia v. Peralta, 8 SCRA 692
A temporary appointment and a designation are not subject to confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments. Such confirmation, if given erroneously, will not make the incumbent a permanent
appointee.
Binamira v. Garrucho, 188 SCRA 154
Where a person is merely designated and not appointed, the implication is that he shall hold the office
only in a temporary capacity and may be replaced at will by the appointing authority. In this sense, a
designation is considered only an acting or temporary appointment which does not confer security of
tenure on the person named.
Regular Appointments
Is one made by the President while Congress is in session, takes effect only after confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments, and once approved, continues until the end of the term of the
appointee.
AD INTERIM APPOINTMENTS
Is one made by the President while Congress is not in session, takes effect immediately, but ceases
to be valid if disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or upon the next adjournment of
Congress.
Deemed “by-passed” through inaction. The ad interim appointment is intended to prevent
interruptions in vital government services that would otherwise result from prolonged vacancies in
government offices.
Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002
An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it takes effect immediately and can
no longer be withdrawn by the President once the appointee has qualified into office. The fact that it is
subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does not alter its permanent character.
An ad interim appointment can be terminated for two causes specified in the Constitution: disapproval
of the appointment by the Commission on Appointments, or adjournment by Congress without the
Commission on Appointments acting on the appointment.
When the Commission on Appointments disapproves an ad interim appointment, the appointee can
no longer be extended a new appointment, inasmuch as the disapproval is a final decision of the
Commission in the exercise of its checking power on the appointing authority of the President. Such
disapproval is final and binding on both the appointee and the appointing power.
When an ad interim appointment is by-passed because of lack of time or failure of the Commission on
Appointments to organize, there is no final decision by the Commission to give or withhold its consent
to the appointment. Absent such decision, the President is free to renew the ad interim appointment.
Guevarra v. Inocentes
Ad interim appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments
or until the next adjournment of Congress, referring to the adjournment of the regular or special
session.
Marohombsar v. Alonto, Jr., GR 93711, Feb. 25, 1991, 194 SCRA 390
An ad interim appointment is one made during the time when the appointing or confirming body is not
in session and there is an existing clear and present urgency caused by an impending obstruction or
paralyzation of the functions assigned to the office if no immediate appointment is made.
Summers v. Ozaeta, GR L-1534. Oct. 25, 1948, 81 Phil. 754
Voluntary acceptance of the position consequent upon taking of his oath of office amounts to a waiver
of his right to hold the position of cadastral judge during the term fixed and guaranteed by the
Constitution.
When a judge of first instance, presiding over a branch of a Court of First Instance of a judicial district
by virtue of a legal and valid appointment, accepts another appointment to preside over the same
branch of the same Court of First Instance, in addition to another court of the same category, both of
which belong to a new judicial district formed by the addition of another Court of First Instance to the
old one, enters into the discharge of the functions of his new office and receives the corresponding
salary, he abandons his old office and cannot claim to be entitled to repossess it or question the
constitutionality of the law by virtue of which his new appointment has been issued; and,
Where a new appointment has been disapproved by the commission on Appointments of the National
Assembly, a rejected appointee cannot claim to continue occupying the office conferred upon him by
said new appointment, having ipso jure ceased in the discharge of the functions thereof.
BY-PASSED NOMINATION OR APPOINTMENT
Matibag v. Benipayo GR 149036. Apr. 2, 2002, 380 SCRA 49
By-passed appointment is one that has not been finally acted upon on the merits by the Commission
on Appointments at the close of the session of Congress. There is no final decision by the
Commission on Appointments to give or withhold its consent to the appointment as required by the
Constitution. Absent such decision, the President is free to renew the ad interim appointment of a
bypassed appointee.
Under the Rules of the Commission on Appointment, a by-passed appointment can be considered
again if the President renews the appointment. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that the President
can renew the ad interim appointments of by-passed appointees.
APPOINTMENTS IN ACTING CAPACITY
EO 292 SEC. 16. Power of Appointment.
The President shall exercise the power to appoint such officials as provided for in the Constitution
and laws.
EO 292 SEC. 17. Power to Issue Temporary Designation.
The President may temporarily designate an officer already in the government service or any other
competent person to perform the functions of an office in the executive branch, appointment to which
is vested in him by law, when: (a) the officer regularly appointed to the office is unable to perform his
duties by reason of illness, absence or any other cause; or (b) there exists a vacancy[.]
Pimentel, Jr. v. Ermita, GR 164978. Oct. 13, 2005, 472 SCRA 587
An appointment in an acting capacity is temporary in nature. It is a stop-gap measure intended to fill
an office for a limited time until the appointment of a permanent occupant to the office. In case of
vacancy in an office occupied by an alter ego of the President, such as the office of a department
secretary, the President must necessarily appoint an alter ego of her choice as acting secretary
before the permanent appointee of her choice could assume office.
NOMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT
Philippine Constitution, Article VII, Section 16
“The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the
heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of
the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments
are vested in him in this constitution.” He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government
whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by the law, and those whom he may be
authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower
in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions,
or boards. The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of Congress,
whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by
the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.”
QUORUM OF THE COMMISSION
New Rules of The Commission On Appointments
Chapter III Section 10. Place Of Meeting And Quorum.
The Commission shall meet at either the session hall of the Senate or the House of Representatives
upon the call of the Chairman, or at such other place as the Commission may designate. The
presence of at least thirteen (13) members is necessary to constitute a quorum: Provided, however,
that at least four (4) of the members constituting the quorum should come from either House.
Provided, further, that the presence of the Chairman shall be considered in determining the existence
of a quorum. There shall be a regular meeting of the Commission every Wednesday and on the last
two (2) days of each session of Congress, unless otherwise decided by the Commission or the
Chairman.
VOTATION
New Rules of The Commission On Appointments
Chapter V Section 16. Referral Of Nominations Or Appointments To Committees; Exception.
All nominations or appointments submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation or
approval shall, upon receipt thereof, be directly and immediately referred by the Chairman to the
appropriate Standing Committees. The Standing Committee concerned may begin consideration of
the nomination or appointment after receipt of the referral. The Commission, on petition of not less
than ten (10) members may, however, directly consider a nomination or appointment and, thereupon,
vote on it after the lapse of ten (10) days from the date of referral. It may also directly consider a
nomination or appointment and, thereupon, vote on it before the lapse of the ten (10) day period, on
petition of at least thirteen (13) members.
New Rules of The Commission On Appointments
Chapter V Section 23. Voting.
Voting by the Commission on any nomination or appointment submitted for confirmation shall be by
viva voce; except, upon request of any member, the voting shall be nominal, by ballot during caucus,
or by any other appropriate technological means. (Amended on 30 September 2020).
ACTIONS BY COMMISSION ON NOMINATION OR APPOINTMENT
New Rules Of The Commission On Appointments
Chapter V Section 16. Referral Of Nominations Or Appointments To Committees; Exception.
All nominations or appointments submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation or
approval shall, upon receipt thereof, be directly and immediately referred by the Chairman to the
appropriate Standing Committees. The Standing Committee concerned may begin consideration of
the nomination or appointment after receipt of the referral. The Commission, on petition of not less
than ten (10) members may, however, directly consider a nomination or appointment and, thereupon,
vote on it after the lapse of ten (10) days from the date of referral. It may also directly consider a
nomination or appointment and, thereupon, vote on it before the lapse of the ten (10) day period, on
petition of at least thirteen (13) members.
SECTION 17. UNACTED OR BY-PASSED NOMINATIONS OR APPOINTMENTS RETURNED TO
THE PRESIDENT.
Nominations or appointments submitted by the President of the Philippines which are not finally acted
upon or by-passed at the close of the session of Congress shall be returned to the President and,
unless new nominations or appointments are made, shall not again be considered by the
Commission.
SECTION 18. RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION OF THE COMMISSION.
Resolution of the Commission on any nomination or appointment may be reconsidered on written
motion by any member who voted with the majority or the prevailing side presented to the Chairman
not later than one (1) day after the approval of the resolution: Provided, that said motion for
reconsideration be taken up on the next plenary session of the Commission. If the majority of the
members present approves such motion for reconsideration, the nomination or appointment shall be
reopened and submitted anew to the Commission. A motion to reconsider the vote on any nomination
or appointment may, however, be laid on the table and which decision shall be considered as a final
disposition of such motion for reconsideration.
A motion to reconsider, however, is not in order if filed during the last plenary session of the
Commission prior to an adjournment of Congress.
SECTION 19. SUSPENSION OF NOTICE TO THE PRESIDENT DURING THE PERIOD OF
RECONSIDERATION.
Notice of confirmation or disapproval of a nomination or an appointment shall not be sent to the
President of the Philippines before the expiration of the period for its reconsideration or while motion
for reconsideration is pending.
SECTION 20. SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION OF NOMINATIONS OR APPOINTMENTS.
Any member may move for the suspension of action by the Commission on any nomination or
appointment favorably recommended by a Standing Committee and the Chairman shall suspend the
consideration of said nomination or appointment: Provided, that such suspension may be taken up on
the next succeeding session of the Commission; Provided, further, that this section shall not apply to
nominations or appointments taken up by the Commission during the last session prior to a sine die
adjournment of Congress and as provided under Section 25 of the Rules.
SECTION 21. AUTHORITY TO INVITE OR SUBPOENA WITNESSES.
The Commission or any of its Standing Committees may invite or subpoena (duces tecum and ad
testificandum) a person to testify on any matter or case pending before it. In plenary sessions of the
Commission on Appointments and, in meetings and hearings conducted by the Standing Committees,
in connection with complaints filed against the confirmation of pending nominations or appointments,
the Secretary may avail of the services of the Stenographers Division of the Senate, the House of
Representatives, or both. In case of failure of the nominee, appointee, or witness to attend, the
Chairman, upon proof thereof may issue a warrant to the Sergeant-At-Arms to arrest the nominee,
appointee, or witness and bring him before the Commission.
SECTION 22. OPPOSITION MUST BE UNDER OATH.
No opposition or complaint filed by a non-member of the Commission to a nomination or appointment
shall be considered by the Commission unless it be in writing, under oath, and presented to the
Standing Committee concerned before the said committee has made its final recommendation, and
under no circumstance will it be entertained thereafter; Provided, that, on the ground of fraud,
accident, mistake, excusable neglect, or newly discovered evidence, an opposition may be
considered prior to final confirmation of the nomination or appointment.
SECTION 23. VOTING.
Voting by the Commission on any nomination or appointment submitted for confirmation shall be by
viva voce; except, upon request of any member, the voting shall be nominal, by ballot during caucus,
or by any other appropriate technological means. (Amended on 30 September 2020)
INQUIRIES IN AID OF LEGISLATION
Article VI SECTION 21.
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 respected.
Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 767
An inquiry is held not to be in aid of legislation if there appears to be no intended legislation involved
and the issue to be investigated is one over which jurisdiction has been acquired by the
Sandiganbayan; the issue is thus been preempted by that Court.
Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate Committee on Banks, G.R. No. 167173, December 27, 2007
The mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before a court or a quasi-judicial body
should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative inquiry, otherwise, it would be extremely easy
to subvert any intended inquiry by Congress through the convenient ploy of instituting a criminal or an
administrative complaint. The exercise of sovereign legislative authority, of which the power of
legislative inquiry is an essential component, cannot be made subordinate to a criminal or an
administrative investigation
A legislative inquiry does not violate the petitioner’s right to privacy.
A legislative inquiry does not violate the petitioners’ right against self-incrimination, because the
officers of Standard Chartered Bank are not being indicted as accused in a criminal proceeding; they
are merely summoned as resource persons, or as witnesses. Likewise, they will not be subjected to
any penalty by reason of their testimony
Miguel v. Gordon, G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006
The right of the people to access information on matters of public concern generally prevails over the
right to the privacy of ordinary financial transactions.
There is no infringement of the individual’s right to privacy as the requirement to disclose information
is for a valid purpose; in this case, to ensure that the government agencies involved in regulating
banking transactions adequately protect the public who invest in foreign securities.
SCOPE OF INQUIRIES
Arnault v. Nazareno, GR L-3820. July 18, 1950, 87 Phil. 29
It is not necessary for the legislative body to show that every question propounded to a witness is
material to any proposed or possible legislation; what is required is that it be pertinent to the matter
under inquiry.
A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the
conditions which the legislation is intended to effect or change; and where the legislative body does
not itself possess the requisite information, which is not infrequently true, recourse must be had to
others who do possess it. Experience has shown that mere requests for such information are often
unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so
some means of compulsion is essential to obtain what is needed.
The Senate being a continuing body, there is no limit as to time the Senate’s power to punish for
contempt.
Miguel v. Gordon, G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006
The power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation encompasses everything that
concerns the administration of existing laws, as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It even
extends to government agencies created by Congress and officers whose positions are within the
power of Congress to regulate or abolish. Certainly, a mere provision of law cannot pose a limitation
to the broad power of Congress in the absence of any constitutional basis.
SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ABUSES
Senate v. Ermita, GR 169777. Apr. 20, 2006, 488 SCRA 1
A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting
conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and when it does not possess the
required information, recourse must be had on others who possess it. This power is broad enough to
cover officials of the executive branch. The operation of the government is a proper subject for
investigation.
There are exemptions to the power of inquiry, which fall under the rubric of ‘executive privilege’. It is
defined by Schwartz as “the power of the government to withhold information from the public, the
courts and the Congress.” (e.g. state secret privilege, informer’s privilege, generic privilege)
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 ground that it is privileged,
it must so assert it and state the reason therefor and why it must be respected.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
Schwartz defines executive privilege as “the power of the Government to withhold information from
the public, the courts, and the Congress.” Similarly, Rozell defines it as “the right of the President and
high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately
the public.”
State Secrets Privilege
Exemption on the ground that the information is of such nature that its disclosure would subvert
crucial military or diplomatic objectives.
Informer’s Privilege
The privilege of the Government not to disclose the identity of persons who furnish information of
violations of law to officers charged with the enforcement of that law.
Generic Privilege
Exemption of internal deliberations has been said to attach to intragovernmental documents reflecting
advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which
governmental decisions and policies are formulated.
Almonte v. Vasquez, GR 95367, May 23, 1995, 244 SCRA 286
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.
While in cases which involve state secrets it may be sufficient to determine from 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 a privilege resting on other
considerations.
NATURE AND SCOPE OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
Chavez v. PEA, GR 133250. May 6, 2003, 403 SCRA 1
In ongoing negotiations, the right to information is limited to definite government propositions. The
members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission understood that the right to information covers
negotiations leading to a transaction’s completion. This right affects three types of information: a)
official records; b) documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions; and c)
government research. Matters recognized as privileged information are not covered by the right.
Article II Section 28.
Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full
public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.
Article III Section 7.
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to
official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as
well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Chavez v. PCGG, GR 130716. Dec. 9, 1998, 299 SCRA 744
The "information" and the "transactions" referred to in the subject provisions of the Constitution (Sec.
7 [Article III]) have as yet no defined scope and extent. There are no specific laws prescribing the
exact limitations within which the right may be exercised or the correlative state duty may be obliged.
However, the following are some of the recognized restrictions:
Limitations to the Right:
(1) National Security Matters
There is a governmental privilege against public disclosure with respect to state secrets regarding
military, diplomatic and other national security matters. But where there is no need to protect such
state secrets, the privilege may not be invoked to withhold documents and other information, provided
that they are examined "in strict confidence" and given "scrupulous protection."
(2) Trade Secrets and Banking Transactions
Trade or industrial secrets (pursuant to the Intellectual Property Code and other related laws) as well
as banking transactions (pursuant to the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act) are also exempted from
compulsory disclosure.
(3) Criminal Matters
Classified law enforcement matters, such as those relating to the apprehension, the prosecution and
the detention of criminals, which courts may nor inquire into prior to such arrest, detention and
prosecution.
(4) Other Confidential Information
The Ethical Standards Act further prohibits public officials and employees from using or divulging
"confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made
available to the public."
QUESTION HOUR
Article VI Section 22
The heads of departments may upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon
the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by
such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the
President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before
their scheduled appearance.
Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When
the security of the State or the public interest so requires, the appearance shall be conducted in
executive session.
Senate v. Ermita, GR 169777. Apr. 20, 2006, 488 SCRA 1
While attendance was meant to be discretionary in the question hour, it was compulsory in inquiries in
aid of legislation. These are two distinct functions of the legislature. Sec. 21 and 22 while closely
related does not pertain to the same power of the Congress. One specifically relates to the power to
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation with the aim of eliciting information that may be used in
legislation while the other pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of which is
to obtain information in pursuit of Congress’ oversight function. Hence, the oversight function of
Congress may only be facilitated by compulsory process only to the extent that it is performed in
pursuit of legislation.
QUESTION HOUR FOR CABINET MEMBERS
Senate v. Ermita, GR 169777. Apr. 20, 2006, 488 SCRA 1
When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for the department heads to exempt
themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege, and not by the mere fact that they are
department heads. Only one executive official may be exempted from this power – the president on
whom the executive power is vested, hence beyond the reach of the Congress except by the power
of impeachment. Members of SC are likewise exempt from this power of inquiry. This is on the basis
of separation of powers and fiscal autonomy, as well as the constitutional independence of the
judiciary.
ADVANCED WRITTEN QUESTIONS
Senate v. Ermita, GR 169777. Apr. 20, 2006, 488 SCRA 1
The requirement for Cabinet Members to secure Presidential consent under Sec. 1 of E.O. 464,
which is limited only to appearances in the question hour, is valid on its face. It cannot, however, be
applied to appearances of department heads in inquiries in aid of legislation. Congress is not bound
in such instances to respect the refusal of the department head to appear in such inquiry, unless a
valid claim of privilege is subsequently made either by the President herself or by the Executive
Secretary, acting for the President.
OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS OF CONGRESS
Macalintal v. Commission on Elections
The power of oversight embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance its understanding
of and influence over the implementation of legislation it has enacted. Clearly, oversight
concerns post-enactment measures undertaken by Congress: (a) to monitor bureaucratic compliance
with program objectives, (b) to determine whether agencies are properly administered, (c) to eliminate
executive waste and dishonesty, (d) to prevent executive usurpation of legislative authority, and (d) to
assess executive conformity with the congressional perception of public interest.
OVERSIGHT OVER ACTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
MODALITIES OF OVERSIGHT
Scrutiny
Implies a lesser intensity and continuity of attention to administrative operations. Its primary purpose
is to determine economy and efficiency of the operation of government activities. In the exercise of
legislative scrutiny, Congress may request information and report from the other branches of
government. It can give recommendations or pass resolutions for consideration of the agency
involved.
Congressional Investigation
While congressional scrutiny is regarded as a passive process of looking at the facts that are readily
available, congressional investigation involves a more intense digging of facts. The power of
Congress to conduct investigation is recognized by the 1987 Constitution under section 21, Article VI.
Legislative Supervision/veto
Congress exercises supervision over the executive agencies through its veto power. It typically
utilizes veto provisions when granting the President or an executive agency the power to promulgate
regulations with the force of law. These provisions require the President or an agency to present the
proposed regulations to Congress, which retains a "right" to approve or disapprove any regulation
before it takes effect.
