Primary Holding

The Supreme Court ruled that while executive privilege is valid, it cannot be invoked through a blanket requirement of prior presidential consent for all executive officials appearing before Congress. Such privilege must be explicitly claimed on a case-by-case basis with specific grounds stated.

Background

The case arose from several Senate investigations where executive officials failed to appear, citing E.O. 464 which President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued requiring executive department officials to secure presidential consent before appearing in congressional inquiries. This led to multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of E.O. 464.

Facts

• 1. Senate committees issued invitations to various executive officials for: (1) Investigation of North Luzon Railways Corporation project; (2) Investigation of alleged wiretapping activities; (3) Investigation of fertilizer fund misuse; (4) Budget hearings
• 2. Executive Secretary Ermita invoked E.O. 464 to prevent officials' attendance
• 3. E.O. 464 key provisions: Section 1: Department heads need presidential consent to appear before Congress; Section 2: Defines scope of executive privilege; Section 3: All covered officials must secure prior consent before appearing

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. E.O. 464 violates: Congress' power of inquiry in aid of legislation; Right to information on matters of public concern; Principle of separation of powers; Constitutional provisions on transparency and accountability
• 2. Executive privilege cannot be invoked through blanket authorization
• 3. Implementation without proper publication violated due process

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. No actual case exists as President never explicitly prohibited appearances
• 2. E.O. 464 implements constitutional provisions on: Executive privilege: Separation of powers; Protection of public officials' rights
• 3. Order falls within President's control over executive department

Issues

• 1. Whether E.O. 464 contravenes Congress' power of inquiry
• 2. Whether E.O. 464 violates the people's right to information
• 3. Whether respondents committed grave abuse implementing E.O. 464 prior to publication

Ruling

• 1. Sections 2(b) and 3 of E.O. 464 are void because: They allow implied claims of executive privilege without specific grounds; They effectively bar officials' appearance without explicit presidential prohibition; They improperly delegate privilege to department heads
• 2. Sections 1 and 2(a) are valid as they: Implement constitutional provisions on question hour; Merely provide guidelines on executive privilege
• 3. Implementation before publication violated due process

Doctrines

• 1. Power of Congressional Inquiry
• 2. Executive Privilege
• 3. Right to Information

Precedents Cited

• 1. Arnault v. Nazareno (1950) - Established Congress' power of inquiry and defined the scope of legislative investigations.
• 2. U.S. v. Nixon (1974) - Clarified the doctrine of executive privilege and set a balancing test for privilege claims.
• 3. Almonte v. Vasquez (1995) - Acknowledged executive privilege in the Philippines and limited its scope.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Article VI, Section 21, 1987 Constitution - Grants Congress the power to conduct inquiries and ensures the rights of individuals appearing before it.
• 2. Article VI, Section 22, 1987 Constitution - Mandates department heads to appear during question hour for accountability.
• 3. Article III, Section 7, 1987 Constitution - Guarantees the public's right to access official records.