2. Requirements as to certain laws b. Question Hour c. Legislative Investigation Arnault vs Nazareno, July 18, 1950 Facts: Ponente: Ozaeta, J.

Buena Vista Estate 25 yrs. lease contract w/ an option to buy for P3M Phil. Govt - Govt owned the land since 1939 Owned by San Juan de Bought by Ernest H. Burt But could not pay the whole amount thus Contract of Sale was rescinded Tambobong Estate Owned by Phil. Trust Bought by Ernest H. Burt But could not pay the whole amount thus Contract of Sale was rescinded Already sold for P750,000 Rural Progress Admin. (govt) - bought for P750T,

Thus a Special Committee was created in order to investigate the sale of the two estate since the government already owned the estate yet the government still paid P5M for the said properties In the said transaction (the P5M the government gave) P1.5M apparently went to Burt through his counsel, Atty. Arnault. The P1.5M was deposited to PNB, P500,000 apparently went to the account of Associated Agencies, Inc. and P440,000 was withdrawn by him. The Committee would like to know who the recipient of the mentioned sum was Arnault was questioned by the Committee but he invoked his right against self-incrimination thus he was held for contempt by the Committee and was imprisoned indefinitely until he reveals the name of who he gave the P440,000 (imprisoned in New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa) Petitioner is now arguing that (Issue): 1.) Senate has no jurisdiction and no power to punish him for contempt for refusing to give the name of the person whom he gave the P440,000 because such info. is immaterial to any intended legislation and his refusal to answer has not obstructed the legislative process. Furthermore, there is already a legis. report recommending what legis. measures must be taken thus theres no more need for the proceedings to push through 2.) Senate cannot held for contempt for a term beyond its period of legislative session 3.) He might incriminate himself if he reveals the name of the person whom he gave the P440,000 because if that person is a public official he might be accused of bribery and if that person is a private individual, the latter might accuse of him of oral defamation Ratio: 1.) Senate has jurisdiction since the power of inquiry is co-extensive with the power to legislate To establish jurisdiction: a.) existence of a legislative purpose b.) pertinency of the questions propounded or questions must be material to the subject matter/inquiry Once jurisdiction is established, the legis. body would now require/compel the person to answer the question , otherwise the person would be cited for contempt The person could be held for contempt if he obstructs the performance of the legis. body The Court ruled that the name is pertinent to the subject matter of the legis. inquiry. It is not necessary for the legis. body to show that every question propounded to the witness is material to any proposed legis. since the Court cannot dictate to Congress what laws it should pass otherwise it would be an encroachment of the separation of powers doctrine. 2.) No categorical answer. The Court ruled that if the power to punish for contempt terminates upon the adjournment of the session, it would seem that the Court is restricting the performance of Congress legis. function and it would lead to an absurd situation wherein the contempt proceedings would be repeated all over again.

P5M additional payment was made by the govt on Oct. 1949

Although that power might be oppressive, the Court leaves to the sound discretion of Congress that it would not do such thing (hold a person indefinitely), if that ever happens, the Court is always open to settle such dispute

3.) No. The Court says that the testimony is unbelievable since his giving a large amount of money to a certain person whom he did not know. Testimony which is obviously false or evasive is equivalent to a refusal to testify is punishable for contempt The fact that the testimony of a witness may tend to show that he has violated the law is not sufficient to entitle him to claim protection of the constitutional provision against selfincrimination, unless he is at the same time liable to prosecution and punishment for such violation. Decision: Petition is denied
Dissent: Tuason: To punish for contempt is judicial in nature Congress is at full liberty to make investigation for the purpose of aiding the Courts but it does not have the authority to imprison persons who refuse to testify The name that the Committee wants to be disclosed is immaterial to the proposed law. If ever he gives the name, the proposed legislation would not be altered anyway.

Facts: This is a petition contending the continued detention of Jean L. Arnault, who was cited for contempt in the case Arnault vs Nazareno, although he already executed an affidavit naming one Jess D. Santos as the person whom he gave the P440,000. Issues: 1.) Did the Senate Special Committee believed the statement of Arnault regarding the recipient of P440,000 to one Jess D. Santos and if it did not, may the Court review the said findings? 2.) Does Senate have the authority and the power to pass its resolution ordering the continued detention of Arnault? Ratio: 1.) No. The Courts do not have the right to review the findings of legis. bodies in the exercise of the prerogative of legislation, or interfere with their proceedings or their discretion. All the Courts may do is to determine if the constitutional guarantee of due process has been accorded to him before his detention (i.e., has been given the opportunity to be heard personally and by counsel in all the proceedings) 2.) Yes. Said power is incidental to the legis. power of Congress otherwise Congress power and authority would be incomplete if every act of a defiant and contumacious witness must be addressed by the judicial branch. Thus it would make Congress dependent on the judicial branch. The Senate Special Committee refused to believe the statement of Arnault thus the Senate held that the act of the petitioner continued the original contempt, or reiterated it Bengzon ,Jr. vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, Nov. 20, 1991 Ponente: Padilla, J. Facts: Sen. Enrile delivered his privilege speech regarding the acquisition of the 36 corporations by Benjamin Kokoy Romualdez during the past regime and the anomalous sale of which to the Lopa Group and to look into the possible violation of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act Thus the petitioners filed a petition for TRO and/or injunctive relief, to enjoin the respondent Senate Blue Ribbon Committee from requiring the petitioners to testify and produce evidence

Arnault vs Balagtas, July 30, 1955 Ponente: Labrador, J.

at its inquiry into the alleged sale of the equity of Benjamin Kokoy Romualdez to the Lopa Group in 36 or 39 corporations. Incidentally, PCGG filed a civil case in the Sandiganbayan against the petitioners The petitioners contend that: 1.) Senate Blue Ribbon Committees inquiry has no valid legislative purpose, i.e., not done in aid of legislation 2.) The sale of the 36 corporation is purely a private transaction which is beyond the power of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to inquire to it 3.) The inquiry violates their right to due process Ratio: 1.) Yes. The power of both Houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation emanates from Art. VI, Sec. 21 Arnault vs Nazareno, such inquiries may refer to the implementation or re-examination of any law or in connection with any proposed legislation or the formulation of future legislation However, the purpose of the inquiry was to find out w/n the relatives of Pres. Aquino, particularly Mr. Ricardo Lopa, has violated the law in connection with the sale of 36 corporations. Thus the Court ruled that there is no intended legislation involved here 2.) Yes. Petitioners herein are not connected with the government but rather, they are private citizens Legis. inquiry has no authority to expose private affairs of individuals since Congress is not a law enforcement agency nor it is a trial agency (x) The jurisdiction of the Senate, regarding the issue, has been pre-empted by the Sandiganbayan when a civil case was filed against the petitioners. If the Committee would be allowed to probe and inquire into the same justiciable controversy already before the Sandiganbayan would be an encroachment of the exclusive domain of the Judicial branch Decision: Petition is granted.
Dissent: Gutierrez, Jr., J. Contends that unraveling the secret behind the acquisition of 36 corporations by Kokoy Romualdez from the past regime and the sale of which to the Lopa Group would be useful to legislation. Arnault vs Nazareno, a legis. 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 the legis. body does not itself possess the requisite information There are 3 queries that may give us the cause to intervene: a.) Matter being investigated is one which no valid legislation could be enacted b.) Congress encroaching on the exclusive domain of another branch of government c.) Congress is violating the basic liberties of an individual

Gudani vs Senga, Aug. 15, 2006 Ponente: Tinga, J. Facts: Sen Biazon invited several senior officers of the AFP to appear before the Senate Committee on National Defense and Security. The topic of which wa the conduct of the 2004 National elections as well as the Hello Garci tapes AFP Chief-of-Staff Gen. Senga ordered the AFP, per instruction of PGMA, ordering them that no AFP personnel shall appear before any Congressional or Senate hearing (pursuant also to the EO 464 of the Pres.) However, Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan, members of Joint Task Force Ranao (tasked to maintain the peace and order in Lanao del Norte and Lanao del Sur during the 2004 elections) appeared before the said Senate Committee Because of which, they were relieved of from their duty for violating the time-honored Chain of Command amongst those in military service Petitioners now seek:

(x) Gen. Gudani also argues that he can no longer fall within the jurisdiction of the court-martial considering his retirement last Oct. 4, 2005 1.) The charges against the petitioners (for violating the Chain of Command) be quashed and to enjoin the Gen. Court Martial from proceeding against the petitioners 2.) The order of Pres. Arroyo preventing the petitioners from testifying before Congress to be declared null and void (pursuant to EO 464) Ratio: (x) No, still he could be held liable even thou he is retired. Abadilla vs Ramos, the Court declared that even thou an officer whose name was dropped from the roll of officers is still within the jurisdiction of the military authority given that military proceedings were initiated against him before the termination of his service. Once jurisdiction has been acquired over the officer, it continues until his case is terminated. 1.) Court cannot enjoin the military court SC is not a trier of facts, thus it could only limit itself to those facts that are not controverted before the Court. Any investigation for violation of rules within the military is left before the court-martial. Moreover, the petitioners are not charged with violating EO 464 but instead, they were charged for violating a directive order from a superior officer. 2.) Court does not need to. The ability of the Pres. to prevent military officers from testifying before Congress does not come from executive privilege but rather, from the commander-in-chief powers of the Pres. Does EO 464 does not need to apply to such officers as the Court also struck down Secs. 2(b) and 3 of EO 464 (in Senate vs Ermita) Pursuant also to Art. II, Sec.3, supremacy of the civilian authority over the military, and as Courts are also considered civilian authority, thus military authority is still subject to the Courts The Court held that the military may be compelled not to attend legis. inquiries even if the Pres. desires the otherwise since it would not offend the Chief Execs prerogative as commander-in-chief, if so, the remedy lies in the Courts Senate vs Ermita, if the Pres. does not allow any member of the AFP to attend Congressional hearings, Congress may seek judicial relief to compel their attendance. Decision: Petition is denied Senate vs Ermita, April 20, 2006 Ponente: Carpio-Morales, J Facts: Committee of the Senate as a whole issued invitations to various officials of the Executive Dept. regarding the railway project of the North Luzon Railways Co. with the China National Machinery and Equipment Group Senate Committee on National defense also issued invitations to officials of the AFP regarding the alleged electoral fraud of May 2005, wire-tapping of the Pres. and the Hello Garci tapes in response to privilege speeches delivered by different Senators at that time On Sept. 28, 2005, PGMA issued EO 464, in accordance with Art. VI, Sec. 22, directing all heads of departments of Exec. Branch and military officials to secure the consent of the Pres. prior to appearing before Congress invoking executive privilege Several cabinet members were also invited to attend Senate hearings concerning the fertilizer fund scam under the Ginintuang Masaganang Ani program of the DA, however officials from DA and DBM declined the invitation invoking EO 464 During the budget hearings by the Senate, although Press Sec. and Pres. Spokesman Ignacio Bunye attended, several Dept. heads declined to attend the hearings invoking EO 464. Thus 6 petitions were filed seeking to declare EO 464 null and void. Issues: Procedural: (x) locus standi (x) actual case or controversy 1.) Whether EO 464 contravenes the power of inquiry vested in Congress

2.) Whether EO 464 violates the right of the people to info. on matters of public concern 3.) Implementing EO 464 prior to its publication in a newspaper of general circulation Ratio: (x) locus standi a. Solons who are members of respective Committees who calls for a legis. inquiry has standing since it violates their legislative prerogative to conduct inquiries b. Party-list representatives have standing since it violates their legislative prerogative to conduct inquiries and their oversight functions c. Chavez and members of the IBP have standing since their right to info. is being violated d. PDP-Laban has no standing since: (PDP-Laban only satisfied the second requirement) If you are invoking matters of transcendental importance, must est.: i. the character of the funds (public) or other assets involved in the case ii. presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition iii. lack of any party with a more direct and specific interest in raising the questions being raised (x) actual case or controversy The implementation of EO 464 has already resulted in the absence of officials invited to the hearings 1.) Yes. In Art. VI, Sec. 22, the Question Hour, in keeping with the separation of powers, states that Congress may only request their appearance. However in Art. VI, Sec. 21, Inquiry in Aid of Legislation, their appearance is mandatory. Although separation of powers should be respected, however if it deals with Congress performance of its legis. function, the right to elicit information from the executive branch becomes imperative given that they are elected representatives of the people. The only limiting factor is if it is performed in pursuit of legislation Congress is not bound to respect such refusal, if it concerns in aid of legislation, unless a valid claim of privilege is made by either the Pres. or the Exec. Secretary. Validity of Sections 2 and 3: a.) Sec. 2(a) is valid if the reference to persons being covered by the executive privilege means that the person is in possession of information which is, in the judgment of the head of office concerned, privileged b.) Sec. 2(b) is invalid since it presupposes that executive privilege covers persons. Executive privilege is properly invoked in relation to specific categories of information and not categories of persons c.) Sec. 3 is invalid because it does not provide precise and certain reasons for the claim of executive privilege, it merely invokes EO 464 or assertion of executive privilege is merely implicit The reason why Sec. 2(b) and 3 of EO 464 was struck down by the Court is that it presumes that once an official from the executive department invokes executive privilege, it is presumed to bear the Presidents authority. Such presumptive authorization is contrary to exceptional nature of the privilege. 2.) Yes. Congress has the right to know why the executive considers the requested information privileged. It does not suffice to merely declare that the Pres. or an authorized head of office, has determined it so. Such info, to be regarded as privileged, must be crucial to the fulfillment of the unique role and responsibilities of the executive branch Information, being presumed as material to the inquiry in aid of legislation, is presumed to be a matter of public concern 3.) Yes Pursuant to Taada vs Tuvera, executive issuances which intends to enforce a law and its subject matter is a matter of public interest, thus still it must comply with the publication requirement Decision: Petition is partly granted

Sabio vs Gordon, Oct. 17, 2006 Ponente: Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. Facts: On Feb. 28, 1986, Pres. Aquino issued EO 1 creating the Pres. Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Sec. 4(b) of EO 1 provides: No member or staff of the Commission shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding concerning matters within its official cognizance On Feb. 20, 2006, Sen. Defensor-Santiago introduced Sen. Res. 455 directing an inquiry in aid of legislation regarding the anomalous losses incurred by the Phil. Overseas Telecommunications Co. (POTC), Phil. Communications Satellite Co. (PHILCOMSAT), and PHILCOMSAT Holdings Co. (PHC) due to their alleged improprieties in their operation (funds are being siphoned, loans are being granted to members). In lieu of this, PCGG Chairman Sabio and the other PCGG Commissioners were invited by the Senate Committee however, he declined the invitation: 1.) Invoking Sec. 4(b) of EO 1 2.) Sen. Committees are not invested with the power of contempt 3.) Right of privacy was violated Ratio: 1.) Sec 4(b) of EO 464 pre-empts Congress power of inquiry (Art. VI, Sec. 21) Arnault vs Nazareno, The operation of government being a legitimate subject for legislation, is a proper subject for investigation and the power of inquiry is co-extensive with the power to legislate It is inconsistent with: a.) Art. XI, Sec. 1 which provides that Public office is a public trust thus it is inconsistent with the principle of public accountability as it places PCGG officials beyond the reach of the Courts, Congress, and other administrative bodies b.) Art. II, Sec. 28 (policy of full public disclosure) c.) Art. III, Sec. 7 (right of the people to info. on matters of public concern d.) Art. XVIII, Sec. 3 which provides that existing laws, decrees, EOs, proclamations, LOI, and other executive issuances inconsistent with the Constitution are repealed. 2.) No. The Order of Arrest for contempt was approved by Sen. Pres. Villar and other 15 Senators which means the said Order is under the authority, not only of the said Sen. Committee, but of the entire Senate Art. VI, Sec. 21 grants power of inquiry not only to the Senate and HRep but also to any of their respective committees by virtue of direct conferral of power Arnault vs Balagtas, contempt power is incidental to the legis. power of Congress otherwise Congress power and authority would be incomplete if every act of a defiant and contumacious witness must be addressed by the Judicial branch. Thus it would make Congress dependent on the Judicial branch. 3.) No. The inquiry focuses on petitioners acts committed in the discharge of their duties as officers and directors of the said corporations. Court ruled that right of the people to access matters of public concern prevails over the right to privacy. Decision: Petition was denied, petitioners must comply with subpoena ad testificandum

Facts: The recordings of the Hello Garci tapes are being deliberated on both Houses of Congress thus Garcillano filed a petition in the SC seeking to restrain the use of the tape recordings in the House Committees and to stricken off the records the deliberations of such tapes

Garcillano vs HRep Committee on Public Info, etc., Dec. 23, 2008 Ponente: Nachura, J.

Sen. Defensor-Santiago delivered a privileged speech recommending a legis. investigation into the role of the Intelligence Service of the AFP, PNP or other government entities in the alleged illegal wiretapping of public officials. Thus, Ranada and Agcaoili, filed a petition regarding the Senate inquiry on the Hello Garci tapes since it violates RA 4200 (Anti Wire-Tapping Law) and Art. III, Sec. 3 (right to privacy)

Ratio: 1.) First petition is moot since the recordings in the HRep has already been conducted and the committee reports have already been completed and submitted to the House in plenary by the respective Committeee 2.) Publication of rules were not complied with Art. VI, Sec. 21 provides that respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with duly published rules of procedure Although Senate, as an institution, is a continuing body as it is not dissolved as an entity with each National elections, however Senate, in the conduct of its business, is not a continuing legislative body. Given that half of its composition are elected every 3 years, thus at the start of every session, Congress should publish its rules given that every session, Congress changes its composition The Rules of Senate itself confirms it, under Rule XLIV: Unfinished Business, all pending matters and proceedings (unpassed bills and even legis. investigations, of the Senate are considered terminated upon the expiration of that Congress and it is merely optional on the Senate of the succeeding Congress to take up such unfinished matters, not in the same status, but as if presented for the first time. Dissent: Puno The ruling fails to adhere to the Neri Ruling, as the latter emphasizes that not all orders issued or proceedings conducted pursuant to the subject Rules are null and void. Only those that result in violation of the rights of witnesses should be considered null and void. Inconsistencies: 1.) In the Neri decision, the Court recognized the validity and effectivity of the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries, even without publication in the 14th Congress, holding that the Contempt Order against Neri is invalid for failing to comply with the majority voting requirement under Sec. 18 of the aforementioned rules. The Court also held that the investigation of NBN-ZTE was procedurally infirm for being conducted without valid Rules of procedure Governing Inquiries, as these were not published in the 14th Congress 2.) Although Congress has a discontinuing nature of business, still it is a continuing body, evident in the continuing nature of its Rules and the Rules of the previous Congress have been adopted by the succeeding one. Since the Rules adopted were published on Aug. 24, 1995, thus it remains effective up to this day. 3.) Although illegally recorded private communication are inadmissible evidence, there must be exceptions (i) if the evidence would deter the commission of illegal wiretapping, and (ii) in legislative investigations whose particular purpose is to craft or improve laws that would address the evils of wiretapping.

Neri vs Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigation, March 25, 2008 Ponente: Leonardo-De Castro, J. Facts: Respondent Committees initiated the investigation regarding the NBN-ZTE Project and sent out invitations to certain personalities and cabinet members involved in the said contract. Petitioner is one of them. On Sept. 26, 2007, petitioner testified before respondent Committees for 11 hours. However, when probed about certain questions regarding the said project, Neri invoked executive privilege thus refusing to answer the questions on:

(a) whether or not PGMA followed up the NBN Project (b) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it (c) whether or not she directed him to approve Because of which, respondent Committees issued a subpoena ad testificandum requiring the petitioner to appear and testify again In a letter, Exec. Sec. Ermita requested the respondent Committee to dispense with the petitioners testimony on the ground of executive privilege. Ermita even cited that disclosure of conversations of the Pres. would hamper the effective discharge of the Presidents duties and responsibilities. He even added that such information, if disclosed, might impair our diplomatic and economic relations with China. Although Neri replied to the respondent Committee through a letter, however respondent Committee found Neris explanations unsatisfactory thus they issued an Order citing Neri for contempt and ordering his detention and arrest In view of the respondents Order, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari seeking to restrain the implementation of the said Order Issues: 1.) Are the communications elicited by the subject 3 questions covered by the executive privilege? 2.) Did the claim of executive privilege was properly invoked? 3.) Did respondent Committees committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the contempt Order? Ratio: 1.) Yes. Subject of inquiry relates to the power textually committed by the Constitution to the President Such information falls on the presidential communications privilege since such information relates to diplomacy or foreign relations, as it involves diplomatic and economic relations with China Complies with the elements of presidential communications privilege a.) such communications relates to the quintessential and non-delegable power of the Pres. given the subject matter related to the power of the Pres. to enter executive agreements with other countries b.) such information came from a close adviser or within the operational proximity of the Pres. c.) there is no adequate showing that there is a compelling need, from the investigating authority, and the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority. In Senate vs Ermita, Congress must show, to compel someone to disclose an information, such inquiry must be in pursuit of legislation (x) the assertion of Congress of their power to investigate and inform cannot justify the enforcement of the subpoena issued by the Committee. Since there is a difference between Congress legislative task and its task as a fact-finding investigative Committee (x) invocation of the petitioner of the executive privilege does not violate the right of the people to information on matters of public concern since such right is still subject to such limitations as may be provided by law (Art. III, Sec. 7) 2.) Yes. The letter of Ermita stating that, this Office (Office of the Pres.) is constrained to invoke the executive privilege and has advised Neri accordingly, Court recognized that it serves as a formal claim of privilege 3.) Yes. a.) Since there is a legitimate claim of executive privilege b.) Respondent Committee did not comply with the requirement laid down in Senate vs Ermita that the invitations should contain the proposed legislation to warrant such inquiry, the subject of the inquiry, and the pertinent questions thereof. (provided by Art. VI, Secs. 21 & 22) c.) Only the minority of the members of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee was present during the deliberations d.) did not publish its rules of procedure (Art. VI, Sec. 21) e.) respondent Committees issuance of the contempt Order is arbitrary and precipitate since the Committee did not first pass upon the claim of executive privilege and the Committee did not inform the petitioner of their ruling Decision: Petition granted.

Dissent: Puno No explanation from the Exec. Sec. on how diplomatic secrets would be exposed, at the expense of our national interest, if the petitioner answers the 3 disputed questions. Functional impairment test balancing the benefits vs the harms on the 2 branches of government making conflicting claims of their powers and privileges (using Functional test to resolve the class of powers between the executive and the legislative) a.) the more concentrated the power of the Pres, in regards to the executive privilege, the greater the need for confidentiality, otherwise if the more shared or diffused of that power, the weaker would be the presumption. In the case at bar, foreign loan agreement, that power is shared by the Pres., to contract or guarantee foreign loans, is shared with the Central Bank (the composition of which are from private sector) b.) concerning the need of Congress for such information. The 3 assailed questions are pertinent to the subject matter of the legislative inquiries and also to the pending bills thereat The information regarding the NBN-ZTE project is material to the proposed amendments to the Govt Procurement Reform Act and ODA Act

Akbayan vs Aquino, July 16, 2008 Ponente: Carpio-Morales, J Facts: Petitioners Taada and Aguja filed a HR calling for an inquiry into the JPEPA thus requesting Usec Aquino (Phil. Coordinating Committee) of the latest draft of the JPEPA However, Usec. Aquino responded through a letter that the Congressmen would be provided of the copies after negotiations have been completed. The House Committee on Globalization requested Exec. Sec. Ermita to furnish them with all documents, including the latest draft of the proposed agreement, the requests and offers. Exec. Sec. Ermita declined by responding through a letter that they would furnish the Committee a copy of the pertinent documents as soon as the text thereof is settled and complete The Solons tried to subpoena the said documents, however House Speaker De Venecia requested the solons to wait until the Pres. gives her consent to the disclosure of the documents Thus, the petitioners seek to obtain from the respondents the full text of the JPEPA including Philippine and Japanese offers submitted during the negotiation process and all pertinent attachments and annexes thereto (because there was some speculation that the agreement would be signed within Dec. 2005, following Art. VII, Sec. 21, the JPEPA is being deliberated by the Senate) Issues: 1.) the refusal to disclose the documents on JPEPA negotiations violates their right to info. on matters of public concern and contravenes with constitutional provisions on transparency 2.) As Congressmen, they have the right to subject the said documents on the basis of Congress inherent power to regulate commerce, domestic or international - Art. VI, Sec. 28(2), Congress authorizing the Pres. to fix the tariff rates, and; - Art. VII, Sec. 21, No treaty or international agreements shall be valid unless concurred by 2/3 of the Senate 3.) failed to timely claim executive privilege 1.) No. The JPEPA agreement is within the diplomatic negotiations privilege of the Pres. provided in Art. VII, Sec. 20 It is meant to encourage a frank exchange of exploratory ideas between the negotiating parties by shielding such negotiations from public view. To also protect the independence in decision-making of the Pres. In favor of keeping the subject info. confidential vs. In favor of disclosure (public interest)

Argument in favor of disclosure: - US vs Nixon, constitutional need for production of relevant evidence in a criminal proceedings - Senate Select Committee vs Nixon, showing that the responsibilities of that institution cannot responsibly fulfilled without access to such information Petitioners failed to present strong and sufficient showing of the need to subject such document pursuant to their legislative functions given that: a.) the full text of the JPEPA agreement has already been available since Sept. 11, 2006 b.) it is already deliberated in the Senate 2.) They dont have any right. Though treaty agreements needs 2/3 concurrence of Senate, it only pertains to the validity of the treaty under consideration, not to the conduct of the negotiations. Moreover, it is not even Congress as a whole that was given the authority to concur, but only Senate 3.) No. Although the respondents did not claim executive privilege during the House Committee hearings, it may not be construed as a waiver thereof by the Exec. branch since respondents merely requested for information and the subpoena wasnt even issued. The Court warns that, per Senate vs Ermita, to claim exec. privilege, still it must comply with the requirement that it must be invoked by the Pres. or through the Exec. Sec. by order of the Pres. Decision: Petition is dismissed Personal Notes: Executive privilege (Art. VI, Sec. 22) The right of the Pres. and high-level executive branch officers to withhold info. from Congress, the Courts and ultimately the public. i. Conversations and correspondence between the President and the public official covered by this executive order (Almonte vs. Vasquez; Chavez v. PEA); ii. Discussion in close-door Cabinet meetings (Chavez v. PCGG); iii. Information between inter-government agencies prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements (Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government iv. Military and diplomatic orders (Almonte vs. Vasquez; Chavez v. PCGG). v. Matters affecting national security and public order (Chavez v. Public Estates Authority). Two kinds of executive privilege (In Re: Sealed Case and Neri vs Senate Committee) 1.) Presidential communications privilege communications, documents or other materials that reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations rooted on the separation of powers doctrine and Presidents unique constitutional role Elements: a.) The protected communication must relate to a quintessential and non-delegable Pres. power b.) The communication must be authored or solicited and received by a close advisor or within the operational proximity of the Pres. c.) there is no adequate showing that there is a compelling need, from the investigating authority, and the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority 2.) Deliberative process privilege advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated (decision-making of executive officials) rooted on common law privilege Concept and bases of congressional oversight (It 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 e.) to assess executive conformity with the congressional perception of public interest Categories of congressional oversight functions: 1.) scrutiny (request information and report from the other branches of the government) a.) Budget hearing. Is based on the power of appropriation of Congress. The power of the purse belongs to Congress. The Pres. may propose the budget, but still, Congress has the final say on appropriations. Holding of a budget hearing is a means of reviewing policy and of auditing the use of previous appropriation. b.) Power of confirmation. Commission on Appointments (CA) approves the appointments of i.) heads of executive depts., ii.) ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, iii.) officers of the armed forces from the rank of coronel or naval captain, and iv.) other officers whose appointments are vested with the Pres. under the Constitution c.) Question Hour (questions about any aspect of administrative activity) 2.) investigation (inquiries in aid of legislation) Holding investigation on suspected corruption, mis-management, or inefficiencies of government officials. McGrain vs Daugherty. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely of effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to effect change. An investigating committee has only the power to inquire into matters within the scope of the authority delegated to it by its parent body 3.) supervision informed awareness on the part of a congressional committee regarding executive operations in a given administrative area Legislative veto. It typically utilizes veto provisions when granting the Pres. or an executive agency the power to promulgate regulations with the force of law. These provisions require the Pres. or an agency to present the proposed regulations to Congress, which retains a right to approve or disapprove any regulation before it takes effect. Inquiry in aid of legislation and Question hour are closely related and complementary to each other, but they do not pertain to the same power of Congress: Inquiry in Aid of Legislation (Art. VI, Sec. 21) the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for legislation attendance is compulsory The power of Congress to investigate is circumscribed by three limitations, namely: (Section 21, Article VI) (a) it must be in aid of its legislative functions, (b) it must be conducted in accordance with duly published rules of procedure, and (c) the persons appearing therein are afforded their constitutional rights, including the right to be represented by counsel and the right against self-incrimination. 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 Question Hour (Art. VI, Sec. 22) the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress oversight function attendance was meant to be discretionary 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 and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session