SC Rules on EO 464 Constitutionality

April 20th, 2006 at 4:19 am (General, National Politics)

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that Executive Order 464 is essentially constitutional. The SC agrees with the EO is consistent with the separation of powers of the Executive and Legislative branches of the Philippine government as stipulated in the 1986 Constitution. Both the EO and the SC cite Article VI of the Constitution as the basis of the constitutionality of EO 464.

Sections 21 and 22 of Article VI are presented in the rationale of EO 464:

Section 21. 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.

Section 22. 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 states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session.

According to the SC ruling, although EO 464 is in accordance with the above-stated articles, one of its provisions, is contrary to the constitution. Section 2b of EO 464 lists the executive officials covered by EO 464:

(b) Who are covered. – The following are covered by this executive order:

1. Senior officials of executive departments who in the judgment of the department heads are covered by the executive privilege;
2. Generals and flag officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of Staff are covered by the executive privilege;
3. Philippine National Police (PNP) officers with rank of chief superintendent or higher and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of the PNP are covered by the executive privilege;
4. Senior national security officials who in the judgment of the National Security Adviser are covered by the executive privilege; and
5. Such other officers as may be determined by the President.

According to the SC, this provision is unconstitutional as Article VI Section 22 of the Constitution only covers department heads. Thus, parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of EO 464 Section 2b are unconstitutional and therefore, invalid.

It is now up to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Although lesser officials are under the provisions of EO 464, the order is still potent enough to stall or railroad legislative work, specifically Senate hearings and more importantly, budget hearings. Yes, EO 464 is mostly constitutional and legitimate. But it doesn’t mean that its implementation is entirely ethical and good for the country.

Bookmark on del.icio.us

Related Posts:

Tags: , ,


2 Comments

  1. Rizalist said,

    April 23, 2006 at 7:21 am

    In your opinion, can they bring Norberto Gonzales back and investigate the Venable Contract?

  2. Rizalist said,

    April 24, 2006 at 12:34 am

    Weird thing about this decision, Senate v. Ermita, is that it takes great pains and many pages to establish the principle that Executive Privilege covers sensitive information and not persons in executive positions. But it’s most salient action is to invalidate Section 2(b), which attempts to cover executives below the Dept Heads. But it upholds and affirms the declared nature and scope of the executive privilege. I wonder how the rumour got started that Malacanang Palace lost.

Post a Comment