The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed the petition seeking to declare as unconstitutional an order by then-President Duterte barring members of the Executive branch from appearing before a Senate probe in the disbursement of P67.3 billion COVID-19 funds.
In an en banc decision, the SC through Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, said that the SC “is constrained to dismiss the petition for having been prematurely filed.”
The petition was filed by the Senate in 2021.
In ruling against the petition, the SC pointed out that it would violate the principle of separation of powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the
government.
In 2021, the Senate Blue Ribbon panel started an investigation on the budget utilization of the Department of Health following a report from the Commission on Audit that there was a deficiency of P67.3 billion in public funds intended for the government’s COVID-19 response.
The Senate investigating body then conducted hearings on the following matters: (1) the DOH’s underutilization of its 2020 budget; (2) the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines by local government units; (3) unspent funds, misstatements, irregularities, and deficiencies of the DOH, as found by COA; and (4) payment claims issues between the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation and private hospitals.
The SC stressed that the assailed memorandum issued by Duterte raised jurisdictional challenge –- whether the subject inquiry of the SBRC) properly falls within its jurisdiction or within the jurisdiction of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee (JCOC) created under the Bayanihan Acts — which should have been resolved first by the Senate before seeking relief from the high court.
“Notably, the forum to address such jurisdictional claim is the Senate and its committees themselves. This recognition is meant to accord the highest respect for the Senate’s own Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation,” the SC declared.
The high tribunal noted that Section 3 of Senate Rules states: “If the jurisdiction of the Committee is challenged on any ground, the said issue must first be resolved by the Committee before proceeding with the inquiry.”
The hearings were attended by the concerned officials from the Executive Department, including then DOH Secretary Francisco Duque III.
However, executive officials stopped attending the hearings after President Duterte, through Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, issued a memorandum dated October 4, 2021 directing all officials and employees of the Executive Department to cease from attending the SBRC hearings on the government’s disbursement of the COVID-19 funds.
The memorandum also asserted that the SBRC inquiry has turned into a preliminary investigation of sorts meant to identify the persons allegedly liable for irregularities that existing statutes already defined and punish.
Thus, the memorandum claimed the SBRC has stepped into the mandates of other branches of government.
This prompted the Senate to file a petition before the SC seeking to compel the invited executive department officials to attend hearings of SBRC and other committees..
It invoked the Senate of the Philippines v. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita case, where the SC declared null and void Executive Order No. 464 issued in 2005 by then President Arroyo to bar officials from testifying in Congress without her consent.
The petition also sought the issuance of an injunction to prohibit the Executive department from issuing and implementing directives to law enforcement agencies such as the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) that would obstruct the proceedings of the Senate and withhold assistance in the enforcement of the Senate’s compulsory processes.
But the Supreme Court noted that the petition failed to mention that the Senate or any of its committees had ruled on the jurisdictional challenge raised in the Duterte memorandum. I
In its comment on the petition, the Office of the Solicitor General maintained that jurisdiction over alleged anomalies pertaining to COVID-19 funds disposition belong to the JCOC.
Besides from lack of jurisdiction, the chief state lawyer stressed that the Senate violated not only its own rules but also the rights of the Executive officials attending the hearings.
The OSG noted that the notice of hearing sent to the Department of Health did not specify until what time each hearing date would end, the conduct of the hearings was unparliamentary and the Senate did not provide DOH officials a copy of the questions in advance.
The Executive branch also complained that then SBRC chairperson, Senator Richard Gordon acted in an offensive or unparliamentary manner.
It added that Gordon degraded the dignity of the resource persons as they were subjected to humiliation, bullying, and belittlement.
However, the SC ruled that there was no actual case or controversy ripe for its adjudication.
“There is no immediate or threatened injury to the power of the Senate because it has yet to exercise the same. Hence, we still cannot tell whether this power, despite its proper exercise, has been disobeyed by the President as a result of his Memorandum,” the SC declared.
“Unless and until the Senate has resolved with finality the jurisdictional challenge of the President, there can be no actual case or controversy to speak of yet,” the tribunal said.
The Court’s also distinguished the present petition from its 2006 decision in Senate v. Ermita where it declared that “any executive issuance tending to unduly limit disclosures of information in such
investigations necessarily deprives the people of information which, being presumed to be in aid of legislation, is presumed to be a matter of public concern.
Unlike the present petition, the SC said the Senate v. Ermita case involved a challenge on the ground of executive privilege and a blanket prohibition that did not reject any subject inquiry as one in aid of legislation.
On the other hand, the present case offers a direct jurisdictional challenge to the SBRC’s inquiry and for its supposed objective, which was in aid of legislation.