EN BANC
|
SENATE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by FRANKLIN M. DRILON, in his capacity as
Senate President, JUAN M. FLAVIER, in his capacity as Senate President Pro Tempore, FRANCIS N. PANGILINAN, in his
capacity as Majority Leader, AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., in his capacity as
Minority Leader, SENATORS RODOLFO G. BIAZON, “COMPANERA” PIA S. CAYETANO,
JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA, LUISA “LOI” EJERCITO ESTRADA, JUAN PONCE ENRILE,
RICHARD J. GORDON, PANFILO M. LACSON, ALFREDO S. LIM, M. A. MADRIGAL,
SERGIO OSMENA III, RALPH G. RECTO, and MAR ROXAS, Petitioners, - versus - EDUARDO
R. ERMITA, in his capacity as Executive Secretary and alter-ego of President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and anyone acting in his stead and in behalf of the
President of the
Respondents. x------------------------------------------x
BAYAN MUNA represented by
DR. REYNALDO LESACA, JR., Rep. SATUR OCAMPO, Rep. CRISPIN BELTRAN, Rep.
RAFAEL MARIANO, Rep. LIZA MAZA, Rep. TEODORO CASINO, Rep. JOEL VIRADOR,
COURAGE represented by FERDINAND GAITE, and COUNSELS FOR THE DEFENSE OF
LIBERTIES (CODAL) represented by ATTY. REMEDIOS BALBIN,
Petitioners, - versus - EDUARDO
ERMITA, in his capacity as Executive Secretary and alter-ego of President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Respondent. x------------------------------------------x FRANCISCO
I. CHAVEZ,
Petitioner, - versus - EDUARDO
R. ERMITA, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, AVELINO J. CRUZ, JR., in
his capacity as Secretary of Defense, and GENEROSO S. SENGA, in his capacity
as AFP Chief of Staff,
Respondents. x------------------------------------------x ALTERNATIVE
LAW GROUPS, INC. (ALG), Petitioner, - versus - HON.
EDUARDO R. ERMITA, in his capacity as Executive Secretary,
Respondent. x-----------------------------------------x PDP-
LABAN, Petitioner, - versus - EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA,
Respondent. x------------------------------------------x JOSE
ANSELMO I. CADIZ, FELICIANO M. BAUTISTA, ROMULO
R. RIVERA, JOSE AMOR AMORANDO, ALICIA A. RISOS-VIDAL, FILEMON C. ABELITA III,
MANUEL P. LEGASPI, J. B. JOVY C. BERNABE, BERNARD L. DAGCUTA, ROGELIO V.
GARCIA, and the INTEGRATED BAR FOR THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioners, - versus - HON.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA,
Respondent. |
G.R. No. 169777* Present: PANGANIBAN, C.J., PUNO,** QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, CALLEJO, SR., AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, and VELASCO, JR.,
JJ. Promulgated: April 20,
2006 G.R. No. 169659
G.R. No. 169660 G.R. No. 169667 G.R. No. 169834 G.R. No.
171246 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
A transparent
government is one of the hallmarks of a truly republican state. Even in the early history of republican
thought, however, it has been recognized that the head of government may keep
certain information confidential in pursuit of the public interest. Explaining the reason for vesting executive
power in only one magistrate, a distinguished delegate to the U.S.
Constitutional Convention said: “Decision, activity, secrecy, and
dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man, in a much more
eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as
the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished.”[1]
History has
been witness, however, to the fact that the power to withhold information lends
itself to abuse, hence, the necessity to guard it zealously.
The present
consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition proffer that the
President has abused such power by issuing Executive Order No. 464 (E.O. 464)
last September 28, 2005. They thus pray
for its declaration as null and void for being unconstitutional.
In
resolving the controversy, this Court shall proceed with the recognition that
the issuance under review has come from a co-equal branch of government, which
thus entitles it to a strong presumption of constitutionality. Once the challenged order is found to be
indeed violative of the Constitution, it is duty-bound to declare it so. For the Constitution, being the highest
expression of the sovereign will of the Filipino people, must prevail over any
issuance of the government that contravenes its mandates.
In
the exercise of its legislative power, the Senate of the Philippines, through
its various Senate Committees, conducts inquiries or investigations in aid of
legislation which call for, inter alia, the attendance of officials and
employees of the executive department, bureaus, and offices including those
employed in Government Owned and Controlled Corporations, the Armed Forces of
the Philippines (AFP), and the Philippine National Police (PNP).
On September 21 to 23, 2005, the
Committee of the Senate as a whole issued invitations to various officials of
the Executive Department for them to appear on September 29, 2005 as resource
speakers in a public hearing on the railway project of the North Luzon Railways
Corporation with the China National Machinery and Equipment Group (hereinafter
North Rail Project). The public hearing
was sparked by a privilege speech of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile urging the
Senate to investigate the alleged overpricing and other unlawful provisions of
the contract covering the North Rail Project.
The Senate Committee on National
Defense and Security likewise issued invitations[2]
dated September 22, 2005 to the following officials of the AFP: the Commanding
General of the Philippine Army, Lt. Gen. Hermogenes C. Esperon; Inspector
General of the AFP Vice Admiral Mateo M. Mayuga; Deputy Chief of Staff for
Intelligence of the AFP Rear Admiral Tirso R. Danga; Chief of the Intelligence
Service of the AFP Brig. Gen. Marlu Q. Quevedo; Assistant Superintendent of the
Philippine Military Academy (PMA) Brig. Gen. Francisco V. Gudani; and Assistant
Commandant, Corps of Cadets of the PMA, Col. Alexander F. Balutan, for them to
attend as resource persons in a public hearing scheduled on September 28, 2005
on the following: (1) Privilege Speech of Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr.,
delivered on June 6, 2005 entitled “Bunye has Provided Smoking Gun or has
Opened a Can of Worms that Show Massive Electoral Fraud in the Presidential
Election of May 2005”; (2) Privilege Speech of Senator Jinggoy E. Estrada
delivered on July 26, 2005 entitled “The Philippines as the Wire-Tapping
Capital of the World”; (3) Privilege Speech of Senator Rodolfo Biazon delivered
on August 1, 2005 entitled “Clear and Present Danger”; (4) Senate Resolution
No. 285 filed by Senator Maria Ana
Consuelo Madrigal – Resolution Directing the Committee on National Defense and
Security to Conduct an Inquiry, in Aid of Legislation, and in the National Interest,
on the Role of the Military in the So-called “Gloriagate Scandal”; and (5)
Senate Resolution No. 295 filed by Senator Biazon – Resolution Directing the
Committee on National Defense and Security to Conduct an Inquiry, in Aid of
Legislation, on the Wire-Tapping of the President of the Philippines.
Also invited to the above-said
hearing scheduled on September 28 2005 was the AFP Chief of Staff, General
Generoso S. Senga who, by letter[3]
dated September 27, 2005, requested for its postponement “due to a pressing
operational situation that demands [his] utmost personal attention” while “some
of the invited AFP officers are currently attending to other urgent operational
matters.”
On
September 28, 2005, Senate President Franklin M. Drilon received from Executive
Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita a letter[4]
dated September 27, 2005 “respectfully request[ing] for the postponement of the
hearing [regarding the NorthRail project] to which various officials of the
Executive Department have been invited” in order to “afford said officials
ample time and opportunity to study and prepare for the various issues so that
they may better enlighten the Senate Committee on its investigation.”
Senate
President Drilon, however, wrote[5]
Executive Secretary Ermita that the Senators “are unable to accede to [his
request]” as it “was sent belatedly” and “[a]ll preparations and arrangements
as well as notices to all resource persons were completed [the previous] week.”
Senate
President Drilon likewise received on September 28, 2005 a letter[6]
from the President of the North Luzon Railways Corporation Jose L. Cortes, Jr.
requesting that the hearing on the NorthRail project be postponed or cancelled
until a copy of the report of the UP Law Center on the contract agreements
relative to the project had been secured.
On September 28, 2005, the President
issued E.O. 464, “Ensuring Observance of
the Principle of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the Rule on Executive
Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in
Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under the Constitution, and For
Other Purposes,”[7]
which, pursuant to Section 6 thereof, took effect immediately. The salient provisions of the Order are as
follows:
SECTION 1. Appearance by Heads of Departments Before Congress. – In accordance with Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution and to implement the Constitutional provisions on the separation of powers between co-equal branches of the government, all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress.
When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall only be conducted in executive session.
SECTION. 2. Nature, Scope and Coverage of Executive Privilege. –
(a) Nature and Scope. - The rule of confidentiality based on executive privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995). Further, Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides that Public Officials and Employees shall not use or divulge confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public to prejudice the public interest.
Executive privilege covers all confidential or classified information between the President and the public officers covered by this executive order, including:
(b) Who are covered. – The following are covered by this executive order:
SECTION 3. Appearance of Other Public Officials Before Congress. – All public officials enumerated in Section 2 (b) hereof shall secure prior consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress to ensure the observance of the principle of separation of powers, adherence to the rule on executive privilege and respect for the rights of public officials appearing in inquiries in aid of legislation. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Also
on September 28, 2005, Senate President Drilon received from Executive
Secretary Ermita a copy of E.O. 464, and another letter[8]
informing him “that officials of the Executive Department invited to appear at
the meeting [regarding the NorthRail project] will not be able to attend the
same without the consent of the President, pursuant to [E.O. 464]” and that
“said officials have not secured the required consent from the President.” On
even date which was also the scheduled date of the hearing on the alleged wiretapping,
Gen. Senga sent a letter[9] to
Senator Biazon, Chairperson of the Committee on National Defense and Security,
informing him “that per instruction of [President Arroyo], thru the Secretary
of National Defense, no officer of the [AFP] is authorized to appear before any
Senate or Congressional hearings without seeking a written approval from the
President” and “that no approval has been granted by the President to any AFP
officer to appear before the public hearing of the Senate Committee on National
Defense and Security scheduled [on] 28 September 2005.”
Despite
the communications received from Executive Secretary Ermita and Gen. Senga, the
investigation scheduled by the Committee on National Defense and Security
pushed through, with only Col. Balutan and Brig. Gen. Gudani among all the AFP
officials invited attending.
For
defying President Arroyo’s order barring military personnel from testifying
before legislative inquiries without her approval, Brig. Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan
were relieved from their military posts and were made to face court martial
proceedings.
As
to the NorthRail project hearing scheduled on September 29, 2005, Executive
Secretary Ermita, citing E.O. 464, sent letter of regrets, in response to the
invitations sent to the following government officials: Light Railway Transit Authority Administrator
Melquiades Robles, Metro Rail Transit Authority Administrator Roberto
Lastimoso, Department of Justice (DOJ) Chief State Counsel Ricardo V. Perez,
then Presidential Legal Counsel Merceditas Gutierrez, Department of
Transportation and Communication (DOTC) Undersecretary Guiling Mamonding, DOTC
Secretary Leandro Mendoza, Philippine National Railways General Manager Jose
Serase II, Monetary Board Member Juanita Amatong, Bases Conversion Development
Authority Chairperson Gen. Narciso Abaya and Secretary Romulo L. Neri.[10] NorthRail President Cortes sent personal
regrets likewise citing E.O. 464.[11]
On
October 3, 2005, three petitions, docketed as G.R. Nos. 169659, 169660, and
169667, for certiorari and prohibition, were filed before this Court
challenging the constitutionality of E.O. 464.
In G.R. No. 169659, petitioners party-list Bayan
Muna, House of Representatives Members Satur Ocampo, Crispin Beltran, Rafael
Mariano, Liza Maza, Joel Virador and Teodoro Casino, Courage, an organization of government employees, and
Counsels for the Defense of Liberties (CODAL), a group of lawyers dedicated to
the promotion of justice, democracy and peace, all claiming to have standing to
file the suit because of the transcendental importance of the issues they
posed, pray, in their petition that E.O.
464 be declared null and void for being unconstitutional; that respondent
Executive Secretary Ermita, in his capacity as Executive Secretary and
alter-ego of President Arroyo, be prohibited from imposing, and threatening to
impose sanctions on officials who appear before Congress due to congressional
summons. Additionally, petitioners claim
that E.O. 464 infringes on their rights and impedes them from fulfilling their
respective obligations. Thus, Bayan Muna alleges that E.O. 464 infringes on its
right as a political party entitled to participate in governance; Satur Ocampo,
et al. allege that E.O. 464 infringes on their rights and duties as
members of Congress to conduct investigation in aid of legislation and conduct
oversight functions in the implementation of laws; Courage alleges that the tenure of its members in public
office is predicated on, and threatened by, their submission to the
requirements of E.O. 464 should they be summoned by Congress; and CODAL alleges
that its members have a sworn duty to uphold the rule of law, and their rights
to information and to transparent governance are threatened by the imposition
of E.O. 464.
In G.R. No. 169660, petitioner
Francisco I. Chavez, claiming that his constitutional rights as a citizen,
taxpayer and law practitioner, are affected by the enforcement of E.O. 464,
prays in his petition that E.O. 464 be declared null and void for being
unconstitutional.
In G.R. No. 169667, petitioner
Alternative Law Groups, Inc.[12]
(ALG), alleging that as a coalition of 17 legal resource non-governmental
organizations engaged in developmental lawyering and work with the poor and
marginalized sectors in different parts of the country, and as an organization
of citizens of the Philippines and a part of the general public, it has legal
standing to institute the petition to enforce its constitutional right to
information on matters of public concern, a right which was denied to the
public by E.O. 464,[13]
prays, that said order be declared null and void for being unconstitutional and
that respondent Executive Secretary Ermita be ordered to cease from
implementing it.
On October 11, 2005, Petitioner Senate
of the Philippines, alleging that it has a vital interest in the resolution of
the issue of the validity of E.O. 464 for
it stands to suffer imminent and material injury, as it has already
sustained the same with its continued enforcement since it directly interferes
with and impedes the valid exercise of the Senate’s powers and functions and
conceals information of great public interest and concern, filed its petition
for certiorari and prohibition, docketed as G.R. No. 169777 and prays
that E.O. 464 be declared unconstitutional.
On October 14, 2005, PDP-Laban, a
registered political party with members duly elected into the Philippine Senate
and House of Representatives, filed a similar petition for certiorari and
prohibition, docketed as G.R. No. 169834, alleging that it is affected
by the challenged E.O. 464 because it hampers its legislative agenda to be
implemented through its members in Congress, particularly in the conduct of
inquiries in aid of legislation and transcendental issues need to be resolved
to avert a constitutional crisis between the executive and legislative branches
of the government.
Meanwhile, by letter[14]
dated February 6, 2006, Senator Biazon reiterated his invitation to Gen. Senga
for him and other military officers to attend the hearing on the alleged
wiretapping scheduled on February 10, 2005.
Gen. Senga replied, however, by letter[15]
dated February 8, 2006, that “[p]ursuant to Executive Order No. 464, th[e]
Headquarters requested for a clearance from the President to allow [them] to
appear before the public hearing” and that “they will attend once [their]
request is approved by the President.”
As none of those invited appeared, the hearing on February 10, 2006 was
cancelled.[16]
In another investigation conducted
jointly by the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Food and the Blue Ribbon
Committee on the alleged mismanagement and use of the fertilizer fund under the
Ginintuang Masaganang Ani program of the Department of Agriculture (DA),
several Cabinet officials were invited to the hearings scheduled on October 5
and 26, November 24 and December 12, 2005 but
most of them failed to attend, DA Undersecretary Belinda Gonzales, DA
Assistant Secretary Felix Jose Montes, Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority
Executive Director Norlito R. Gicana,[17]
and those from the Department of Budget and Management[18]
having invoked E.O. 464.
In the budget hearings set by the
Senate on February 8 and 13, 2006, Press Secretary and Presidential
Spokesperson Ignacio R. Bunye,[19]
DOJ Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez[20]
and Department of Interior and Local Government Undersecretary Marius P. Corpus[21]
communicated their inability to attend due to lack of appropriate clearance
from the President pursuant to E.O. 464. During the February 13, 2005 budget
hearing, however, Secretary Bunye was allowed to attend by Executive Secretary
Ermita.
On February 13, 2006, Jose Anselmo I.
Cadiz and the incumbent members of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines, as taxpayers, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines as
the official organization of all Philippine lawyers, all invoking their
constitutional right to be informed on matters of public interest, filed their
petition for certiorari and prohibition, docketed as G.R. No. 171246,
and pray that E.O. 464 be declared null and void.
All the petitions pray for the
issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining respondents from
implementing, enforcing, and observing E.O. 464.
In the oral arguments on the petitions
conducted on February 21, 2006, the following substantive issues were
ventilated: (1) whether respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in
implementing E.O. 464 prior to its publication in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation; and (2) whether E.O. 464 violates the
following provisions of the Constitution: Art. II, Sec. 28, Art. III, Sec. 4,
Art. III, Sec. 7, Art. IV. Sec. 1, Art.
VI, Sec. 21, Art. VI, Sec. 22, Art. XI, Sec. 1, and Art. XIII, Sec. 16. The procedural issue of whether there
is an actual case or controversy that calls for judicial review was not taken
up; instead, the parties were instructed to discuss it in their respective
memoranda.
After the conclusion of the oral
arguments, the parties were directed to submit their respective memoranda,
paying particular attention to the following propositions: (1) that E.O. 464
is, on its face, unconstitutional; and (2) assuming that it is not, it
is unconstitutional as applied in four instances, namely: (a) the
so called Fertilizer scam; (b) the NorthRail investigation (c) the Wiretapping
activity of the ISAFP; and (d) the investigation on the Venable contract.[22]
Petitioners in G.R. No. 169660[23]
and G.R. No. 169777[24]
filed their memoranda on March 7, 2006, while those in G.R. No. 169667[25]
and G.R. No. 169834[26]
filed theirs the next day or on March 8, 2006. Petitioners in G.R. No. 171246
did not file any memorandum.
Petitioners Bayan Muna et al.
in G.R. No. 169659, after their motion for extension to file memorandum[27]
was granted, subsequently filed a manifestation[28]
dated March 14, 2006 that it would no longer file its memorandum in the
interest of having the issues resolved soonest, prompting this Court to issue a
Resolution reprimanding them.[29]
Petitioners submit that E.O. 464
violates the following constitutional provisions:
Art. VI, Sec. 21[30]
Art. VI, Sec. 22[31]
Art. VI, Sec. 1[32]
Art. XI, Sec. 1[33]
Art. III, Sec. 7[34]
Art. III, Sec. 4[35]
Art. XIII, Sec. 16 [36]
Art. II, Sec. 28[37]
Respondents Executive Secretary
Ermita et al., on the other hand, pray in their consolidated memorandum[38]
on March 13, 2006 for the dismissal of the petitions for lack of merit.
The Court synthesizes the issues to
be resolved as follows:
1.
Whether E.O. 464 contravenes the power of inquiry vested in Congress;
2.
Whether E.O. 464 violates the right of the people to information on matters of
public concern; and
3.
Whether respondents have committed grave abuse of discretion when they implemented
E.O. 464 prior to its publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
Essential requisites for judicial
review
Before
proceeding to resolve the issue of the constitutionality of E.O. 464,
ascertainment of whether the requisites for a valid exercise of the Court’s
power of judicial review are present is in order.
Like
almost all powers conferred by the Constitution, the power of judicial review
is subject to limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an actual case or
controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person
challenging the act must have standing to challenge the validity of the subject
act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial
interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury
as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be
raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must
be the very lis mota of the case.[39]
Except
with respect to the requisites of standing and existence of an actual case or
controversy where the disagreement between the parties lies, discussion of the
rest of the requisites shall be omitted.
Standing
Respondents,
through the Solicitor General, assert that the allegations in G.R. Nos. 169659,
169660 and 169667 make it clear that they, adverting to the non-appearance of
several officials of the executive department in the investigations called by
the different committees of the Senate, were brought to vindicate the constitutional
duty of the Senate or its different committees to conduct inquiry in aid of
legislation or in the exercise of its oversight functions. They maintain that
Representatives Ocampo et al. have not shown any specific prerogative,
power, and privilege of the House of Representatives which had been effectively
impaired by E.O. 464, there being no mention of any investigation called by the
House of Representatives or any of its committees which was aborted due to the
implementation of E.O. 464.
As for Bayan Muna’s alleged
interest as a party-list representing the marginalized and underrepresented,
and that of the other petitioner groups and individuals who profess to have
standing as advocates and defenders of the Constitution, respondents contend
that such interest falls short of that required to confer standing on them as
parties “injured-in-fact.”[40]
Respecting petitioner Chavez,
respondents contend that Chavez may not claim an interest as a taxpayer for the
implementation of E.O. 464 does not involve the exercise of taxing or spending
power.[41]
With
regard to the petition filed by the Senate, respondents argue that in the
absence of a personal or direct injury by reason of the issuance of E.O. 464,
the Senate and its individual members are not the proper parties to assail the
constitutionality of E.O. 464.
Invoking this Court’s ruling in National
Economic Protectionism Association v. Ongpin[42]
and Valmonte v. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office,[43]
respondents assert that to be considered a proper party, one must have a
personal and substantial interest in the case, such that he has sustained or
will sustain direct injury due to the enforcement of E.O. 464.[44]
That the Senate of the Philippines has
a fundamental right essential not only for intelligent public decision-making
in a democratic system, but more especially for sound legislation[45]
is not disputed. E.O. 464, however,
allegedly stifles the ability of the members of Congress to access information
that is crucial to law-making.[46] Verily, the Senate, including its individual
members, has a substantial and direct interest over the outcome of the
controversy and is the proper party to assail the constitutionality of
E.O. 464. Indeed, legislators have
standing to maintain inviolate the prerogative, powers and privileges vested by
the Constitution in their office and are allowed to sue to question the
validity of any official action which they claim infringes their prerogatives
as legislators.[47]
In the same vein, party-list
representatives Satur Ocampo (Bayan Muna), Teodoro Casino (Bayan Muna),
Joel Virador (Bayan Muna), Crispin Beltran (Anakpawis), Rafael
Mariano (Anakpawis), and Liza Maza (Gabriela) are allowed
to sue to question the constitutionality of E.O. 464, the absence of any claim that an
investigation called by the House of Representatives or any of its committees
was aborted due to the implementation of E.O. 464 notwithstanding, it being
sufficient that a claim is made that E.O. 464 infringes on their constitutional
rights and duties as members of Congress to conduct investigation in aid of
legislation and conduct oversight functions in the implementation of laws.
The national political party, Bayan
Muna, likewise meets the standing requirement as it obtained three seats in
the House of Representatives in the 2004 elections and is, therefore, entitled
to participate in the legislative process consonant with the declared policy
underlying the party list system of affording citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties who lack
well-defined political constituencies to contribute to the formulation and
enactment of legislation that will benefit the nation.[48]
As Bayan Muna and
Representatives Ocampo et al. have the standing to file their petitions,
passing on the standing of their co-petitioners Courage and Codal
is rendered unnecessary.[49]
In
filing their respective petitions, Chavez, the ALG which claims to be an
organization of citizens, and the incumbent members of the IBP Board of
Governors and the IBP in behalf of its lawyer members,[50]
invoke their constitutional right to information on matters of public concern,
asserting that the right to information, curtailed and violated by E.O. 464, is
essential to the effective exercise of other constitutional rights[51]
and to the maintenance of the balance of power among the three branches of the
government through the principle of checks and balances.[52]
It is well-settled that when suing as
a citizen, the interest of the petitioner in assailing the constitutionality of
laws, presidential decrees, orders, and other regulations, must be direct and
personal. In Franciso v. House of
Representatives,[53]
this Court held that when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public
right, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal
interest.
As
for petitioner PDP-Laban, it asseverates that it is clothed with legal standing
in view of the transcendental issues raised in its petition which this Court
needs to resolve in order to avert a constitutional crisis. For it to be accorded standing on the ground
of transcendental importance, however, it must establish (1) the character of
the funds (that it is public) or other assets involved in the case, (2) the
presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory
prohibition by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the
government, and (3) the lack of any party with a more direct and specific
interest in raising the questions being raised.[54] The first and last determinants not being
present as no public funds or assets are involved and petitioners in G.R. Nos.
169777 and 169659 have direct and specific interests in the resolution of the
controversy, petitioner PDP-Laban is bereft of standing to file its
petition. Its allegation that E.O. 464
hampers its legislative agenda is vague and uncertain, and at best is only a
“generalized interest” which it shares with the rest of the political
parties. Concrete injury, whether actual
or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part
to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution.[55] In fine, PDP-Laban’s alleged interest as a
political party does not suffice to clothe it with legal standing.
Actual
Case or Controversy
Petitioners
assert that an actual case exists, they citing the absence of the executive
officials invited by the Senate to its hearings after the issuance of E.O. 464,
particularly those on the NorthRail project and the wiretapping
controversy.
Respondents counter that there is no
case or controversy, there being no showing that President Arroyo has actually
withheld her consent or prohibited the appearance of the invited officials.[56] These officials, they claim, merely
communicated to the Senate that they have not yet secured the consent of the
President, not that the President prohibited their attendance.[57] Specifically with regard to the AFP officers
who did not attend the hearing on September 28, 2005, respondents claim that
the instruction not to attend without the President’s consent was based on its
role as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, not on E.O. 464.
Respondents
thus conclude that the petitions merely rest on an unfounded apprehension that
the President will abuse its power of preventing the appearance of officials
before Congress, and that such apprehension is not sufficient for challenging
the validity of E.O. 464.
The Court finds respondents’ 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 cont