Business Circuit

Oversight and legislation

The Supreme Court should not feel offended if its magistrates are reminded that Congress has two major functions.

One is legislation which can come out from investigations of public officials. This is remedial law.

The other is the oversight function. This is authority given to Congress to conduct inquiries in compliance with its oversight functions.

Under this provision, government officials may not be summoned to appear before hearings.

On the other hand, the function of investigation in aid of legislation is considered by legal luminaries as inviolable.

Therefore, the Supreme Court erred in violating the Charter as far as this function is concerned.

The Court may have failed by omission or design that oversight and investigation in aid of legislation are remarkably different.

As stated in the partial declaration of unconstitutionality of EO 464, Congress merely wanted to be informed of how department heads or cabinet secretaries are enforcing the laws. This is oversight function.

Publication after ruling

I find it odd that the Executive Secretary Eduardo R., Ermita should demand that the rules of the Senate be published to justify legislative inquiry.

This particular point is gray to me. Does Ermita believe that the Court, motu propio, will reverse its ruling after the rules are published?

I do not think so.

The Court has spoken. When the decision becomes final, in the event that the motion for reconsideration is denied, the ruling becomes part of the law of the land.

That law may not be invalidated just because the Senate complied with publication of its rules.

There are two aspects in the Neri case. One is the three questions that Neri should answer but did not invoking executive privilege. The Court, voting 9-6, upheld the privilege.

The other question is non-publication by the Senate of its rules on investigation for the current year. The Court voted 10-5 on this issue.

Complying with publication may not invalidate the decision on executive privilege.

I thought that compliance after a ruling is made borders on what lawyers call ex post facto.

SC ruled on speculation

The Court did not note the fact that Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita failed to substantiate his fears that denial of executive privilege "might impair" diplomatic relations with China.

Yet the Court agreed with him and – again by design or omission – sidelined the major question of whether the President may be allowed executive privilege beyond her official duties and functions.

There is nothing official, although she is President, in alleged anomalies in the ZTE broad band contract.

Thus, it becomes absolutely necessary for the Senate to summon Romulo Neri who suggested in previous appearances that there were talks of alleged bribery among people in the corridors of power.

The truth must be told if the President is to get herself out of widespread suspicions that she and some of her officials and relatives are involved in the alleged bribery.

The ruling of the SC protected the President from revealing the truth. The effect is the suspicion of her involvement will linger far beyond the end of her term.

The ruling also has the effect of admitting that the deal was attended by fraud. If it is not, why did it become necessary for the Court to stop Neri from answering the three questions?

Unfortunately, the Court ruled on the basis of "might impair" as claimed by Ermita. The decision is based on speculation.

The Constitution demands full disclosure of all transactions related to public interest.

The people are expressly granted the right to know what their government is doing or how their president enforces or complies with the law.

However, when national security is involved, disclosure may be denied.

The Senate hearings were called to determine whether anomalies attended the ZTE contract.

The claim of executive privilege should have been junked. The people are denied their right to know. Public office is a public trust.

How do we trust a President who is protected by the Supreme Court from concealing a crime or telling the truth?

We should not! We lost our trust in the power grabber long before the scandal about |ZTE came up.

We cannot trust a leader who seeks protection from telling the truth and concealing a crime by going to Court.

Neither should we trust the nine magistrates who ruled that she is entitled to hide and truth and deny her people their constitutionally guaranteed right to know.

For the first in the history of the judiciary, the Supreme Court legalized what could be criminal acts committed by the President.

Expectedly the senators are up in arms. Their functions have been usurped by the Supreme Court to the advantage of the President.

Executive privilege, they acknowledge, is inherent in the Office of the President. However, it may not be invoked when the purpose is to stonewall the legitimate exercise of the Legislative to hear testimonies as basis for remedial legislation.

As Senator Mar Roxas said, the ruling should be respected.

But it is open to criticism and opposition. As Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio declared in his dissent, executive privilege serves no purpose other than to comfortably shield wrongdoing.

It bears telling that the cancellation of the ZTE contract is tacit admission of the existence of fraud. The Court never bothered about that.

I heard that the President has a mind to cancel the NorthRail project also funded by Chinese money.

The President is producing evidence against herself but she may not be held liable because of executive privilege.