SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

EDUARDO ERMITA
APRIL, 20, 2006

Nature of the Case: These are six consolidated cases docketed as following:
G.R. No. 169777 = Senate of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Ermita
G.R. No. 169659 = Bayan Muna vs. Eduardo Ermita
G.R. No. 169660 = Francisco Chavez vs. Eduardo Ermita
G.R. No. 169667 = Alternative Law Groups vs. Eduardo Ermita
G.R. No. 169834 = PDP Laban vs. Eduardo Ermita
G.R. No. 171246 = Jose Anselmo Cadiz v. Eduardo Ermita

FACTS OF THE CASE:

These consolidated cases are petitions for certiorari stating that the President has abused her
power by issuing Executive Order No. 464 dated September 28, 2005. Petitioners herein pray
that such order be declared as null and void for being unconstitutional.

In the exercise of its legislative power, the Senate of the Philippines through its various
Committees conducts inquiries and investigations in aid of legislation which call for attendance
of officials and employees of the executive department, bureaus, and offices including those
employed in the Government Owned and Controlled Corporations, the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP).

In G.R. No. 169659 Bayan Muna v. Eduardo Ermita, partylist Bayan Muna and HR members
Satur Ocampo, Crispin Beltran, Rafael Mariano, Liza Maza, Joel Virador and Teodoro Casino,
COURAGE = organization of Gov’t employees and CODAL (Counsels for Defense of Liberties)
pray that E.O. 464 be declared unconstitutional and that Executive Sec. Eduardo Ermita be
prohibited from imposing sanctions on officials who appear before Congress due to congressional
summons. They also contend that E.O. 464 infringes on their rights and impedes them to fulfil
their respective obligations.

In G.R. No. 169660 Francisco Chavez vs. Eduardo Ermita, Francisco Chavez claims that his
constitutional rights as a citizen and taxpayer and law practicioner are affected by the enforcement
of E.O. 464 thus he prays that such order be declared null and unconstitutional.

In G.R. No. 169667 Alternative Law Groups vs. Eduardo Ermita, ALG claims that the group has
legal standing to institute the petition to enforce its constitutional right to information on matters
of public concern.

On October 11, 2005, Senate of the Philippines alleging that it has a vital interest in the resolution
of the issue of validity in E.O. 464, claims that it prohibits the valid exercise of the Senate’s
powers and functions and conceals information of great public interest and concern.

ISSUES:

 Whether respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in executing E.O. 464.

 Whether E.O. 464 violates the following provisions of the Constitution: Art. II Sec. 28,
Art. III Sec. 4, Art. III Sec. 7, Art. VI Sec. I, Art. VI, Sec. 21, Art. VI Sec. 22, Article XI
sec. 1 and Art. XIII sec. 16.
 Whether E.O. 464 contravenes the power of inquiry vested in the Congress.
  Whether E.O. 464 violates the right of the people to information on matters of public
concern.

RULING:

E.O. 464 to the extent that it bars the appearance of executive officials before the Congress,
deprives the Congress of the information in the possession of these officials. The power of
inquiry, a power vested in the Congress, is expressly recognized in Sec. 21 of Article VI because,
according to the Court, a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of
information respecting the conditions which the legislation intended to affect or change; thus,
making it an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.

However, even when the inquiry is in aid of legislation, there are still recognized exemptions to
the power of inquiry which exemptions fall under the rubric of “executive privilege”.

The executive privilege, whether asserted against Congress, the courts, or the public; is
recognized only in relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character. Executive
privilege per se is not meant to cover up embarrassing information. It is a relative concept, the
validity of its assertion to a great extent depends upon the political situation of the country.