So according to INQ7
"THE Supreme Court has upheld the right of Congress to compel executive officials to appear before inquiries “in aid of legislation” as it struck down portions of an executive order by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo."I will crow about this however, if the INQ7's 6th update is final, the Supreme Court's decision mirrored my opinion on this matter, and I quote myself.
"The Court also upheld the right of the president to ask for a closed-door session if the "security of the state or the public interest so requires."
"The court said it was "impermissible" for officials to hide behind the President's order to avoid appearing in congressional hearings and for the President to evade requests for information without explaining why to Congress."
"This new EO by the President will test the limits of Presidential power. I can see the logic of the President reviewing with the summoned Cabinet members what he/she can discuss in Congressional hearings. I can see how members of the executive branch can be forbidden to testify on matters of national security unless the hearings are in closed session. I just cannot see how the President can forbid Cabinet members from appearing in congressional hearings without just cause."Yes, I know that next time, I will probably be wrong, but let me be wallow in my smugness at this time. :)
(First post - after INQ7's 2nd update on this story)
Inq7.net reports that the Supreme Court declared EO 464 illegal.
The executive branch or government tried to exercise powers beyond its authority and was smacked down by the Supreme Court.
Checks and balance at work.
I think this is the place to point out Domingo's proposal that the Philippine Congress should adopt the US practice where their
"Congress has practically abandoned its original practice of utilizing the coercive sanction of contempt proceedings at the bar of the House"
"The Congress has instead invoked the aid of the federal judicial system in protecting itself against contumacious conduct. It has become customary to refer these matters to the United States Attorneys for prosecution under criminal law."Because they are prosecuted under criminal law, they are accorded "every right which is guaranteed to defendants in all other criminal cases.".
This rule should limit our Congress' boorishness towards witnesses they deem uncooperative.
Update (this is after INQ7's 4th of 5th update on this story)
Inq7.net has updated their story and it seems that the Supreme Court has only deemed some of EO 464's provisions as illegal
"Voting 14-0, the high court declared as valid Sections 1 and 2 of EO 464 but nullified Section 2(b) and Section 3."