SENATE v. ERMITA POLITICAL LAW JUDICIAL DEPT/ DIVISION OF CASES CARPIO MORALES, J.

FACTS:

In this case, the court proceeded to resolve the petitions questioning the constitutionality of E.O 464, which allowed
President Arroyos subordinates not to appear before Congress in connection with its legislative inquiries. EO 464
provided that persons enumerated and other officials which the President may determine have to secure permission
first from the President before they can attend legislative inquiries In aid of legislation.

The court explained each requisite of a judicial inquiry.

1. There must be an actual case or controversy.

Despite the absence of any showing that Pres. Arroyo invoked it or prohibited the officials to attend
before the congress in its legislative inquiry regarding the railway project of the North Luzon Railways Corp. the
Court found the assertion that the President has not withheld her consent or prohibited the appearance of the
officials concerned immaterial in determining the existence of an actual case or controversy insofar as EO. 464 is
concerned.

Because of the implementation of the challenged EO 464 has already resulted in the absence of officials
invited to the hearings of Petitioner Senate of the Phils the court will proceed in determining the
constitutionality of EO 464.

WHETHER SUCH WITHHOLDING OF INFORMATION VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION, CONSIDERATION OF

THE GENERAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO OBTAIN INFORMATION, KNOWN AS POWER OF INQUIRY UNDER ART VI
SEC 21 OF THE CONSTI.

Under Art VI Sec 21, the power of inquiry, with process to enforce it, is an essential and appropriate
auxiliary to the legislative function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely/effectively in the absence of
information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect/change. But an executive
privilege is a recognized exemption to power of inquiry. It is a power to withhold information from the public,
Courts, and the Congress.

2. The person challenging the act must have standing to challenge the validity of the subject act/ issuance, he
must have a personal and substantial interest in the case/ will sustain direct injury as a result of its
enforcement.
According to the court, for it to be accorded standing, it must establish:
a. The character of the funds (that it is public) or other assets involve in the case.
b. The presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional/ statutory prohibition by the public
respondent agency or instrumentality of the govt.
c. Lack of any party with a more direct and specific interest in raising the questions being raised.
3. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity
4. The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself.

DECISION:

The court declared Sec 2(b) and Section 3 of EO 464 void because it virtually states that executive privilege actually
covers persons, and such is misused because the doctrine of executive privilege is properly invoked in relation to a
specific categories of information and not to categories of persons. This section allows the president to authorize claims
of privilege by mere silence.