633. Senate vs.

Ermita

G.R. No. 169777, July 14, 2006

FACTS:

This case is regarding the railway project of the North Luzon Railways Corporation with the China
National Machinery and Equipment Group as well as the Wiretapping activity of the ISAFP, and the
Fertilizer scam.

The Senate Committees sent invitations to various officials of the Executive Department and AFP
officials for them to appear before Senate on Sept. 29, 2005. Before said date arrived, Executive Sec.
Ermita sent a letter to Senate President Drilon, requesting for a postponement of the hearing on Sept.
29 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 refused the
request.

On Sept. 28, 2005, the President issued EO 464, effective immediately, which, among others, mandated
that “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.” Pursuant to this Order, Executive
Sec. Ermita communicated to the Senate that the executive and AFP officials would not be able to
attend the meeting since the President has not yet given her consent. Despite the lack of consent, Col.
Balutan and Brig. Gen. Gudani, among all the AFP officials invited, attended the investigation. Both faced
court marshal for such attendance.

ISSUES:

WON Senate has legal standing for Judicial Review

RULING:

LEGAL STANDING

Standing of the Senate

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 is not disputed. EO
464, however, allegedly stifles the ability of the members of Congress to access information that is
crucial to law-making. 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 EO
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.