MANILA, 21 April 2006 — The Supreme Court unanimously voted to throw out sections of Executive Order 464, a law requiring top government officials to ask the permission of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo before appearing before any congressional investigation.
Meeting in the northern mountain resort of Baguio, the justices voted 14-0 to label EO 464 unconstitutional.
The tribunal has 15 members but Justice Reynate Puno is on leave.
Supreme Court spokesman Ismael Khan said the justices voted to retain some of the provisions of the order.
“In sum, however, EO 464 was deemed null and void,” Khan explained.
The court ruled that government officials can attend congressional inquiries even without securing permission from the president. Khan said the court upheld sections of the presidential order which issues rules on executive privilege covering all confidential or classified information between the president and the public officers covered by this executive order.
“Since this is constitutional it does not impinge on the powers of Congress. Congress, however, must observe its own rules in the power of inquiry in aid of legislation while the rights of the witnesses should be respected,” Khan said.
He added: “If the inquiry is in aid of legislation, (government officials) must go with or without the consent of the president.”
Presidential Spokesman Ignacio Bunye said in a radio interview that Malacañang would “respect and accept” the Supreme Court decision. “We hope, however, that it will not be taken by certain members of Congress as a license to use their power to conduct inquiries as an avenue to harass public officials or to push particular political agenda(s) as we have seen in the past,” Bunye said.
Senators said the Supreme Court ruling was a vindication of their position.
Senate President Franklin Drilon said in a statement from Tibet, where he is on a parliamentary visit, that EO 464, left unchallenged, would have been disastrous to the democratic system of government.
“It should make the president realize that she cannot overstep constitutional boundaries, specifically those provided under the principle of separation of powers between the branches of government, just to suit her personal agenda,” Drilon said.
Drilon led 17 senators in signing a petition contesting the constitutionality of EO 464 before the high court.
Sen. Joker Arroyo said the high court’s decision prevented what could have been a quasi-dictatorial presidency by destroying the separation of powers.
Sen. Miriam Santiago said EO 464 was unconstitutional in the first place since it violates the “overbreadth doctrine” by being too comprehensive and not limited to certain persons, topics or times.
But Santiago also cautioned fellow lawmakers against taking “impulsive retaliatory measures” such as citing for contempt absent Cabinet members, or abolishing their office budgets.
On the other hand, Santiago blamed Arroyo officials other “wannabes” for pushing EO 464. “The Cabinet should protect the president from controversy by diligently preparing their testimonies at congressional hearings. They should not hide behind the president’s skirt,” she said.
Arroyo signed EO 464 in the midst of a Senate inquiry in Sept. 28, 2005 into her alleged cheating in the 2004 elections.
Opposition leaders and lawyer groups questioned the legality of order, saying the president had violated the bounds of the legislative branch of government.
On Wednesday, Arroyo had her own victory when the court ruled that her executive order containing the new ID system was valid. Under the system, a unified ID card will replace existing government cards such as those on social security and health. (With reports from Inquirer News Service & Agencies)
