|
Friday, April 21, 2006
SC rules vs. Glo’s order
The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday ruled that President Gloria Arroyo’s order banning cabinet and military officials from testifying at congressional inquiries is unconstitutional, when they are summoned in aid of legislation.
In a 52-page en banc decision reached during the magistrates’ summer session in Baguio City, the High Court declared invalid several provisions of President Arroyo’s controversial Executive Order 464, which was issued last September.
“The infirm provisions of EO 464 allow the executive branch to evade congressional requests for information without need of clearly asserting a right to do so and/or proffering its reasons therefore. By the mere expedient of invoking said provisions, the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is frustrated,” the SC said in its decision penned by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales.
All justices concurred with the decision, except for Senior Justice Renato Puno who was still on leave.
Malacañang said it will appeal the ruling while the opposition was elated by the decision.
Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said in a press statement that said the SC should be commended for asserting its decision.
“The Supreme Court ruling upholds the rule of law and it reminds Gloria that her capricious wishes are not the law under a democratic government,” Pimentel said.
In making a distinction between congressional inquiries in aid of legislation and those done during the so-called “Question Hour,” the SC said that the first should not be uncurbed because it is co-extensive with the power to legislate of Congress.
Investigations during the “Question Hour” on the other hand, do not relate to specific legislations but are directed merely to congressional oversight over the implementation of laws.
This means that officials may only invoke EO 464 in investigations during the “Question Hour” but it does not preclude Congress from summoning officials to appear in inquiries in aid of legislation.
The High Court, however, affirmed the constitutionality of Sections 1 and 2 (a), requiring all heads of departments in the executive branch to secure the consent of the President before appearing in any congressional inquiries, pursuant to Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution.
Under that provision, “when the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall only be conducted in executive session.”
EO 464, issued by Malacañang on Sept. 28, 2005, bans members of the executive branch from appearing before any congressional inquiries or hearings without prior consent of the President.
During oral arguments last Feb. 21, the petitioners assailed the “all-powerful, all-encompassing” scope of the EO such that it was being used by some officials to shield their anomalous transactions from congressional scrutiny.
The consolidated petitions were filed by 17 senators; a party-list Bayan Muna; Counsels for the Defense of Liberties; Alternative Law Group; Integrated Bar of the Philippines; former solicitor-general Francisco Chavez; and the Partido ng Demokratikong Pilipino-Laban.
Voided by the SC were Sections 2(B) and 3 of EO 464, which prohibits the appearance of government officials and department heads covered by the EO in any Congressional hearings or inquiries without securing prior consent from the President.
Section 3 of the controversial order states that all such officials should first secure the “prior consent” of the President before appearing in a Congressional inquiry “to ensure the observance of the principle of separation of powers, adherence to the rule on executive privilege and respect for the rights of public officials appearing in inquiries in aid of legislation.”
Among those officials covered by EO 464 are senior officials of the executive departments; generals, flag officers and other officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines; Philippine National Police (PNP) officials with the rank of chief superintendent or higher and other PNP officials.
The order also covered senior national security officials who in the judgment of the department head, chief of staff, PNP chief and the National Security Adviser, respectively, are covered by the executive privilege, as well as such other officers, as may be determined by the President to be covered.
The provisions, the SC said, lend presumptive authorization to officials who would invoke EO 464, which is contrary to the exceptional nature of the executive privilege as rooted in the 1987 Constitution.
The High Tribunal said the power to invoke executive privilege should be limited to the President or to the executive secretary.
Without the power to summon the executive officials, the legislature’s powers to check (the executive) will become meaningless, senators said.
They had cited numerous controversies hounding the Arroyo administration such as the alleged overpriced $400-billion Northrail project, the P728-billion fertilizer scam at the Department of Agriculture, and even the supposed wiretapping of the President’s phone line by the Intelligence Service of the AFP and the alleged vote-rigging in Mindanao, and the Senate’s probe of the Venable LLP lobbying contract, which prompted Malacañang to issue EO 464.
But former solicitor general Alfredo Benipayo, who argued on behalf of government, maintained that the EO merely “reiterates an accepted and well-established privilege of the Chief Executive.”
Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said while Malacañang respects the SC’s ruling, Congress should not take it to mean that they are now licensed to continue harassing public officials or push for specific political agenda in the guise legislative inquiries. (Sunnex)
(April 21, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
