Q:
What is “congressional oversight”?
A:
Broadly defined, the power of oversight embraces all activities
undertaken by Congress to enhance its understanding of and influence
over the implementation of legislation it has enacted. Clearly,
oversight concerns post-enactment measures undertaken by Congress:
(a) to monitor bureaucratic compliance with program objectives, (b)
to determine whether agencies are properly administered, (c) to
eliminate executive waste and dishonesty, (d) to prevent executive
usurpation of legislative authority, and (e) to assess executive
conformity with the congressional perception of public interest. The
power of oversight has been held to be intrinsic in the grant of
legislative power itself and integral to the checks and balances
inherent in a democratic system of government.
Q:
What are the categories of congressional oversight functions?
A:
The acts done by Congress purportedly in the exercise of its
oversight powers may be divided into three categories, namely: (1)
supervision, which connotes a continuing and informed awareness on
the part of a congressional committee regarding executive operations
in a given administrative area; (2) scrutiny, primarily intended to
determine economy and efficiency of the operation of government
activities, exercised through budget hearings, the “question hour”
and the power of confirmation; and (2) investigation, which is also
known as the “inquiry in aid of legislation“.
Q:
What is the basis the power of inquiry in aid of legislation?
A:
The Congressional power of inquiry is expressly recognized in Section
21 of Article VI of the Constitution:
SECTION
21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its
respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in
accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of
persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be
respected.
Even
without this express Constitutional provision, the power of inquiry
is inherent in the power to legislate. The power of inquiry, with
process to enforce it, is grounded on the necessity of information in
the legislative process. If the information possessed by executive
officials on the operation of their offices is necessary for wise
legislation on that subject, by parity of reasoning, Congress has the
right to that information and the power to compel the disclosure
thereof.
Q:
Why is inquiry in aid of legislation important under the separation
of powers?
A:
Under the separation of powers, Congress has the right to obtain
information from any source รข€“ even from officials of
departments and agencies in the executive branch. It is this very
separation that makes the congressional right to obtain information
from the executive so essential, if the functions of the Congress as
the elected representatives of the people are adequately to be
carried out.
Q:
Is the Supreme Court covered by the Congressional power of inquiry?
A:
No. Members of the Supreme Court are exempt from this power of
inquiry on the basis not only of separation of powers but also on the
fiscal autonomy and the constitutional independence of the judiciary.
**However,
this cannot be said to extend to other members of the Judiciary such
as RTC judges since they may be questioned pursuant to the oversight
function of Congress, in relation to their acts in the administration
of justice.
The
House of Representatives Comm. on Justice has jurisdiction over all
matters directly and principally relating to the administration of
justice, the Judiciary, the practice of law and integration of the
Bar, legal aid, penitentiaries and reform schools, adult probation,
impeachment proceedings, registration of land titles, immigration,
deportation, naturalization, and the definition of crimes and other
offenses punishable by law and their penalties. (source: Rules of the
15th
Congress)
Q:
Is the power of inquiry subject to judicial review?
A:
Yes. It may be subjected to judicial review pursuant to the Supreme
Court’s certiorari powers under Section 1, Article VIII of the
Constitution. Since the right of Congress to conduct an inquiry in
aid of legislation is, in theory, no less susceptible to abuse than
executive or judicial power.
Q:
Is the President covered by the power of inquiry?
A:
No. The President, on whom executive power is vested, is beyond the
reach of Congress, except through the power of impeachment. It is
based on the President’s position as the highest official of the
executive branch, and the due respect accorded to a co-equal branch
of government which is sanctioned by a long-standing custom.
Q:
Does the power to inquire extend to officials in the executive
branch?
A:
Yes. The power of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of the
executive branch. The power of inquiry is co-extensive with the power
to legislate. The matters which may be a proper subject of
legislation and those which may be a proper subject of investigation
are one. It follows that the operation of government, being a
legitimate subject for legislation, is a proper subject for
investigation. Since Congress has authority to inquire into the
operations of the executive branch, it would be incongruous to hold
that the power of inquiry does not extend to executive officials who
are the most familiar with and informed on executive operations.
Note:
In
the case of Senate vs. Ermita (G.R.
No. 169777, 20 April 2006),
it was held that: “Congress undoubtedly has a right to information
from the executive branch whenever it is sought in aid of
legislation. If the executive branch withholds such
information on the ground that it is privileged, it must so assert it
and state the reason therefor and why it must be respected.
The
infirm provisions of E.O. 464, however, allow the executive branch to
evade congressional requests for information without need of clearly
asserting a right to do so and/or proffering its reasons
therefor. By the mere expedient of invoking said
provisions, the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation is frustrated. That is
impermissible. For
[w]hat
republican theory did accomplish…was to reverse the old presumption
in favor of secrecy, based on the divine right of kings and nobles,
and replace it with a
presumption in favor of publicity,
based on the doctrine of popular sovereignty. (Underscoring
supplied)[109]
Resort
to any means then by which officials of the executive branch could
refuse to divulge information cannot be presumed valid. Otherwise,
we shall not have merely nullified the power of our legislature to
inquire into the operations of government, but we shall have given up
something of much greater value – our right as a people to take
part in government.”
Q:
Are there limitations to this power? If yes, what are these
limitations?
A:
Yes. As now contained in the 1987 Constitution (Section 21, Article
VI), the power of Congress to investigate is circumscribed by three
limitations, namely: (a) it must be in aid of its legislative
functions, (b) it must be conducted in accordance with duly published
rules of procedure, and (c) the persons appearing therein are
afforded their constitutional rights, including the right to be
represented by counsel and the right against self-incrimination.
In
addition, even where the inquiry is in aid of legislation, there are
still recognized exemptions to the power of inquiry, which exemptions
fall under the rubric of executive privilege.
Q:
What is executive privilege?
A:
Executive privilege is not a clear or unitary concept, although it
has been defined as “the power of the Government to withhold
information from the public, the courts, and the Congress or the
right of the President and high-level executive branch officers to
withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the
public.”
Q:
Does executive privilege refer to persons?
A:
No. Executive privilege is properly invoked in relation to specific
categories of information and not to categories of persons. Executive
privilege, whether asserted against Congress, the courts, or the
public, is recognized only in relation to certain types of
information of a sensitive character.
Q:
What matters are covered by executive privilege?
A:
The matters covered under executive privilege include: (1)
Information between inter-government agencies prior to the conclusion
of treaties and executive agreements; (2) Presidential conversations,
correspondences, and discussions in closed-door Cabinet meetings; and
(3) Matters affecting national security and public order.
Q:
How is this invoked?
A:
When an official is being summoned by Congress on a matter which, in
his own judgment, might be covered by executive privilege, he must be
afforded reasonable time to inform the President or the Executive
Secretary of the possible need for invoking the privilege. This is
necessary in order to provide the President or the Executive
Secretary with fair opportunity to consider whether the matter indeed
calls for a claim of executive privilege. If, after the lapse of that
reasonable time, neither the President nor the Executive Secretary
invokes the privilege, Congress is no longer bound to respect the
failure of the official to appear before Congress and may then opt to
avail of the necessary legal means to compel his appearance.
Q:
Is an implied claim of executive privilege valid?
A:
No. A claim of privilege, being a claim of exemption from an
obligation to disclose information, must be clearly asserted. An
implied claim of privilege is invalid per se. The validity of claims
of privilege must be assessed on a case to case basis, examining the
ground invoked therefore, and the particular circumstances
surrounding it.
Note:
When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for
department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim
of privilege. They are not exempt by the mere fact that
they are department heads. Only
one executive official may
be exempted from this power — the President on whom executive power
is vested, hence, beyond the reach of Congress except through the
power of impeachment. It is based on her being the
highest official of the executive branch, and the due respect
accorded to a co-equal branch of government which is sanctioned by a
long-standing custom. (Senate vs. Ermita)
Q:
What is the Question Hour?
A:
In the context of a parliamentary system of government, the question
hour is a period of confrontation initiated by Parliament to hold the
Prime Minister and the other ministers accountable for their acts and
the operation of the government, corresponding to what is known in
Britain as the question period. The framers of the 1987 Constitution
removed the mandatory nature of such appearance during the question
hour in the present Constitution so as to conform more fully to a
system of separation of powers. This is provided in Article VI,
Section 22 of the Constitution:
SECTION
22. The heads of departments may upon their own initiative, with the
consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the
rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such
House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written
questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the
Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before
their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to
written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the
security of the State or the public interest so requires and the
President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in
executive session.
Q:
Is the power of inquiry in aid of legislation the same as the
“Question Hour”?
A:
No. Section 21 (inquiry in aid of legislation) and Section 22
(question hour) of Article VI of the Constitution are closely related
and complementary to each other, but they do not pertain to the same
power of Congress. One specifically relates to the power to conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit
information that may be used for legislation, while the other
pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of
which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress’ oversight
function. While attendance was meant to be discretionary in the
question hour, it was compulsory in inquiries in aid of legislation.
Q:
If a person is cited in contempt and imprisoned in relation to the
Congressional exercise of inquiry in aid of legislation, how long
will the imprisonment last?
A:
This is tackled by the Supreme Court in Arnault vs. Nazareno, where
the petitioner argued that the Senate lacks authority to commit him
for contempt for a term beyond its period of legislative session.
According to the Supreme Court:
That
investigation has not been completed because of the refusal of the
petitioner as a witness to answer certain questions pertinent to the
subject of the inquiry. The Senate has empowered the committee to
continue the investigation during the recess. By refusing to answer
the questions, the witness has obstructed the performance by the
Senate of its legislative function, and the Senate has the power to
remove the obstruction by compelling the witness to answer the
questions thru restraint of his liberty until he shall have answered
them. That power subsists as long as the Senate, which is a
continuing body, persists in performing the particular legislative
function involved. To hold that it may punish the witness for
contempt only during the session in which investigation was begun,
would be to recognize the right of the Senate to perform its function
but at the same time to deny to it an essential and appropriate means
for its performance. Aside from this, if we should hold that the
power to punish for contempt terminates upon the adjournment of the
session, the Senate would have to resume the investigation at the
next and succeeding sessions and repeat the contempt proceedings
against the witness until the investigation is completed-an absurd,
unnecessary, and vexatious procedure, which should be avoided.
As
against the foregoing conclusion it is argued for the petitioner that
the power may be abusively and oppressively exerted by the Senate
which might keep the witness in prison for life. But we must assume
that the Senate will not be disposed to exert the power beyond its
proper bounds. And if, contrary to this assumption, proper
limitations are disregarded, the portals of this Court are always
open to those whose rights might thus be transgressed.
Sources:
Senate
of the Philippines vs. Eduardo R. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, 20 April
2006; Angara vs. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L-45081, 15 July
1936; Arnault vs. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820, 18 July 1950; Bengzon
vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, G.R. No. 89914, 20 November 1991;
Concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice Puno in Macalintal vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013. July 10, 2003.
