ManilaMailDC.Net - Two GMA edicts are illegal, says High Court

MANILA – The Supreme Court April 20 ruled that President Arroyo’s order banning Cabinet and military officials from testifying at legislative inquiries is unconstitutional. The Court also ruled that Cabinet members could not invoke executive privilege to avoid appearing before Congress.”

Malacanang said the ruling would open the floodgates to a series of “investigations in aid of legislation.” The President’s allies see the ruling as veiled attacks on her.
A few days later, on April 25, the high scored dealt a second major blow to the President by declaring as unconstitutional her policy of allowing police to break up antigovernment rallies held without permits. “The so-called calibrated preemptive response (CPR) policy has no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom,” the high court said in its 13-0 decision.
“It merely confuses our people and is used by some police agents to justify abuses,” said the 36-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna. Associate Justices Reynato Puno and Minita Chico-Nazario were on leave and did not join in the voting.
The Court earlier ruled that provisions of the President’s order, issued in September, were unconstitutional and that Cabinet members and other officials could still be summoned to “investigations in aid of legislation.” Mrs. Arroyo imposed the order after National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales was subjected to an intense grilling in Congress, causing him to fall ill. She charged that the opposition legislators were overstepping their powers and that they were using these investigations to harass public officials.
The President’s spokesman, Ignacio Bunye, said the Palace respects the Court’s ruling and it called on opposition legislators “not to use their power to conduct inquiries as an avenue to harass public officials.” The President’s political adviser, Michael Defensor, said the administration still believes that “definitely it will not allow members of the Cabinet to be pilloried, embarrassed and insulted in the guise of an investigation.” Since last June the opposition has been waging a campaign to oust Mrs. Arroyo, charging her with cheating to win in the May 2004 election.
The President has denied any wrongdoing and last year her allies in Congress defeated an impeachment complaint against her.
Since then, legislators have called investigations into the alleged election fraud and other supposed anomalies. Mrs. Arroyo has charged that these are attempts to covertly extend the impeachment complaint.
The Court voided Sections 2B and 3 of EO 464, which covers senior officials of executive departments who in the judgment of the department heads are covered by the executive privilege; generals and flag officers of the Armed Forces, police officers with rank of chief superintendent or higher; and senior National Security officials who in the judgment of the National Security Adviser are covered by the executive privilege.
Court spokesman Ismael Khan said the Court upheld Sections 1, 2A, 4, 5 and 6 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.”
The decision was written by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales.
Senior Associate Justice Reynato Puno did not take part in the voting. His wife, Luzviminda, former Supreme Court en banc clerk of court, had just died.
The court upheld the right of Congress to compel executive officials to appear before inquiries “in aid of legislation” as it struck down portions of an executive order by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. But the high court ruled that the Executive Order 464, which Arroyo issued in September, was in consonance with the Constitution when it banned department heads from testifying during “question hour” without the President’s consent. The question hour is a rarely held session in which non-lawmakers directly answer questions from legislators not directly related to any pending bill.
The Court also upheld the right of the president to ask for a closed-door session if the “security of the state or the public interest so requires.” The court said it was ‘impermissible’ for officials to hide behind the President’s order to avoid appearing in congressional hearings and for the President to evade requests for information without explaining why to Congress.
“Congress undoubtedly has a right to information from the executive branch whenever it is sought in aid of legislation,” the Court said. “If the executive branch withholds such information on the ground that it is privileged, it must so assert it and state the reason thereof and why it must be respected.”
Khan said the ruling does not impinge on the separation of powers between the executive and the legislative branches.
“But Congress must observe its own rules ... and the rights of their witnesses they hail into these sessions should be respected,” he said.
Malacanang said that it was not giving up the legal battle and would ask the court to reconsider its decision. Solicitor General Antonio Eduardo Nachura said on radio that they would file a motion of reconsideration after studying the ruling, insisting that there was “fundamental, basic Constitutional justification” for the order. Presidential Spokesman Ignacio Bunye said the Palace respected the court’s ruling and called on opposition legislators “not to use their power to conduct inquiries as an avenue to harass public officials.”