Held
Yes, E.O. 111 is unconstitutional, under Article VI, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution and the Supreme Court ruling in Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777 (2006-04-20).
Explanation
The Constitution grants the Senate and the House of Representatives the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, which means they can investigate matters to help them craft laws. This power is found in Article VI, Section 21, which also requires that the rights of persons involved in such inquiries be respected. Article VI, Section 22 allows heads of departments to appear before Congress with the consent of the President or upon request, and provides for procedures including written questions and interpellations.
The executive power is vested in the President (Article VII, Section 1), but this does not mean the President can unilaterally block legislative inquiries. Executive orders must not be inconsistent with the Constitution (Article XVIII, Section 3).
The Supreme Court in Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita struck down provisions of Executive Order No. 464 that barred executive officials from appearing before Congress without clear assertion of privilege and reasons. The Court emphasized that Congress has a constitutional right to information in aid of legislation and that the executive cannot evade this by blanket prohibitions. The Court declared such provisions void because they frustrated Congress's power of inquiry.
Application to the facts
E.O. 111, like E.O. 464, prohibits executive officials named therein from appearing before Congressional investigations without prior approval of the President. This is a blanket restriction that effectively bars Congress from obtaining information from executive officials, which is necessary for its legislative function.
Given the Supreme Court's ruling in Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, which invalidated similar provisions in E.O. 464 for frustrating Congress's power of inquiry, E.O. 111's prohibition likewise violates the constitutional mandate under Article VI, Section 21. The President's executive power does not extend to unilaterally blocking legislative inquiries by forbidding executive officials from appearing before Congress without prior approval.
While the executive privilege exists, it must be clearly asserted with reasons, and cannot be used as a blanket bar. E.O. 111 fails this constitutional requirement and thus is unconstitutional.
- citation lookup failed (no provision number found); used search
- a constitutional provision is among the sources and controls over any conflicting statute
"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."
"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 state…
"The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines."
"All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions, and other executive issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed, or revoked."
Laws retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.
- Section 21, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
- Section 22, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
- Section 1, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
- Section 3, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
"As the implementation of the challenged order has already resulted in the absence of officials invited to the hearings of petitioner Senate of the Philippines, it would make no sense to wait for any further event before considering the present case ripe for adjudication. Indeed, it would be sheer abandonment of duty if this Court would now refrain from passing on the constitutionality of E.O. 464. _Constitutionality of E.O. 464_ E.O. 464, to the extent that it bars the appearance of executive officials before Congress, deprives Congress of the information in the possession of these officials. To resolve the ques…
The Supreme Court in Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita held that E.O. 464, insofar as it bars the appearance of executive officials before Congress, deprives Congress of information in the possession of these officials and frustrates the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.
The Court declared void the provisions of E.O. 464 that allowed the executive branch to evade congressional requests for information without clearly asserting executive privilege and stating the reasons for such claim (Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, 2006).
Cases retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.