EO 464 unconstitutional — lawyers’ group

Do we need to say more? CODAL’s legal view says it all.

I hope Sc will share the same view as that of CODAL.

sana wag ng patagalin pa ng CODAL. FILE NA!!!!

tama ka Huseng Bulag. nakakakita ka pala talaga 😉

but mind you, there is a third reason. the reason why the “president’s legal advisers misled her” is simply to destroy her. sawa na rin daw kasi sila sa presidente nila. di nga lang sila maka-imik kasi baka buweltahan sila tulad ng ginawa kay dinky dog, este, dinky soliman.

IF EO 464 is indeed declared unconstitutional, say, by the SC, will that invalidate the 2 military officers’ “defiance of a Malacanan directive”?..

jusme, kelan naman kaya mare-resolve yun?… sa 2010 na ilalabas ng SC yung decision nila jan… para bang yung citizenship issue ni FPJ..

You try to ask even an average law student and he knows that EO 464 is unconstitutional …GMA’s legal advisers i.e, The FIRM, should stop their ostentatious display of stupidity or plain ignorance of the law.

“Defeat” is not a word in Doña Gloria’s vocabulary, that’s why her prostitutionalist-kleptocratic, pseudo-democratic, euphuist-quixotic government remains in power. It amazes me how the brightest of lawyers in her camp can screw the laws and statutes and then ribald Palace Jester Bunye challenges all opponents of EO464 to take their case to the SC.

Is it because they have been pre-guaranteed by their appointed justices?

Bad grammar, indeed. Maybe it was designed that way para may leeway naman sa interpretation. At the end, the opinion of those who are in power will prevail. Ganun naman parati, di ba?

At any rate, Bernas and the IBP prexy had also declared the unconstitutionality of EO 464.

former sc justice cruz also opined in his inq colum that the eo is an insolent act of gma to muzzle her peeps and to interfere with another branch of govt.

pag ang mga current justices pa naman ay nag decide in gma’s favor on this one, naku not only would they lose whatever respect they still can muster from us but they would be responisble for a huge mess which may or may not get bloody.

bunye, in defense of his mistress’ EO, cites a similar memo that cory issued. napakasinungaling talaga nitong si bunye. e ibang-iba ang memo ni cory kesa sa eo ni gloria. ang tigas ng mukha magsinungaling. sabagay he came up with that fake hello garci tape, remember? something he has never been taken to task for. he even gratuitously gave out info on alleged particpation of drilon in gma’s decision to to the “i’m sorry” speech. sus! why does it matter when we have the EO, gudani and balutan, northrail, venable issues to deal with? and amazingly, the star picks that up as its headline yesterday. hoy, mga taga-star, buking na kayo. wala na kayong cred. give it up, guys.

Control is a sign of weakness. Gloria has lost the support, if there is any, of her people. She is doing everything now to forcibly control everybody.

The End is Near Gloria!

Bye in Advance!

Legal o ilegal man ang EO 464, wala pa rin mangyayari. Isang sign lang ito na ipinapakita sa buong bayan na sila ang batas.

Magaling si GMA and her legal advisers, they can actually implement Martial Law without even declaring an actual martial law.

Typical hypocritical approach in maintaining a dictatorial control in governing the nation.

EO 464 ???
HA, HA, HA, HA, HA Nakakatawa na talaga ang administrasyon…bakit kasi ngayong seryoso na at credible ang naimbitahan sa senado gaya nila Gen. Gudani at kasama ay gusto ng busalan ng palasyo?? dahil kaya itong sina Gudani ay kapanipaniwala at nagsasabi ng totoo? pero bakit nung ang mga komedyante na sina Gen. Mosqueda at ang hepe ng ISAFP ang naimbitahan hindi naman nila nilabas yang EO 464 ? siguro alam ng palasyo na pagtatawanan lang ng publiko ang mga isasagot ng dalawang opisyal kaya ang sinasangkalan ngayon ng lider ng komedyante na si buni ay ang diumano’y ginawang pambabastos ng senado kay kalihim Gonzales.

E mga tsong, matanong ko naman… hindi ba naman kabastusan ang ginawa ni Gonzalez sa mga senador??? under oath siya pero hindi lang senado ang ginagago nya kundi ang lahat ng pilipino na nanonood sa buong mundo ng mga oras na yun para lamang pagtakpan ang amo nya na may guardian angel daw na padala ni Lucifer…. hak hak hak!!!
pagpalain nawa kayo ng kapwa diyablo….

CO-EQUALS

E.O. 464 is a not a “gag order”; nor is it about “executive privilege,” GMA spokesperson Bunye claims it is (but Fr. Bernas refutes). Certainly, its issuance and its subsequent implementation do not threaten the “separation of powers” as advanced by Senate President Drilon.

Rather, E.O. 464 concerns a dutiful exercise of Executive Power the Constitution vests solely in one President of the Republic to “have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices” (Section 17, Article VII) and to be the “Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces” (Section 18, Article VII).

E.O. 464 does not prohibit an executive officer or member of the armed forces from appearing or testifying before Congress; but, in the words of Justice Secretary Gonzalez, these officers are required under the E.O. to secure a “clearance” or seek permission from the President

So, who are these named officers the Executive requires to secure clearance or permission? They are those who are “subject to the direction of the President” as the Commander-in Chief and those who are under the President’s “control” as the Chief Executive.

Section 21, Article VII vests Congress with the power to “conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.”

The succeeding section, Section 22, however, is instructive to the concept of “checks and balances” among co-equals: “The heads of departments may…upon the request of either House…appear before and be heard by such House…”

Thus, insofar as “heads of [executive] departments” are concerned, the authority the Constitution grants to either House during such “inquiries in aid of legislation” is explicitly limited only to issuing a REQUEST for the appearance of these executive officers of a co-equal. The President meanwhile continues to retain the power to “have CONTROL” over those subject to the REQUEST to appear.

In other words, to Congress, the constitutional command is merely to “request” the appearance of executive officers–officers who are under the “control” and “subject to the direction” of a co-equal, the President.

Is the verb to “request” synonymous with the verbs to “compel,” to “summon,” to order,” to “direct,” to “insult,” to “humiliate,” or does it connote a more forceful effect than the verb to “control”?

This is a classic case of one co-equal “checking” potential excesses committed by another and, of course, vice-versa; for, here, the general congressional power to inquire “in aid of legislation” must square with the specific power of the President to maintain exclusive “control” over executive officers.

Any claim perceived to be an “obstruction to legislative processes” or “abuse of discretion” engendered by the implementation of E.0. 464 by the Executive would require the intervention of the third co-equal, the Judicial, to resolve or, as the case maybe, the Ombudsman to first investigate.

Citing an executive officer for contempt for refusing to appear or testify and detaining that officer in order to compel testimony now generally regarded as an implied legislative “prerogative” is of doubtful authority.

For this recourse to implied power—now merely assumed—is fraught with dangerous constitutional implications.

What if that “resource” person, other than an executive officer, cited and “penalized” (meaning, detained) for refusing to divulge “confidential sources of information,” belongs to the Fourth Estate?

Would this implied allowable legislative “prerogative” to detain not fall also under the “unlimited, undefined” lex et consuetudo parliamenti?

So, let the authority to adjudicate and mete out punishment (detention not public insult and humiliation tantamount to attainder) for such refusal or failure by an officer “subject to the direction and control” of the Executive rests solely in the other co-equal the Constitution clothes with the Judicial Power.

Vesting that power to punish (but not to insult and humiliate) exclusively in the Courts, and certainly not in Congress without exception, is the essence of the often cited “checks and balances” among co-equals.

To “balance” the powers vested in the three co-equals should be the rule to follow, and never should there be a policy of “hate” to allow one to override the other so long the third co-equal is still functioning–or the Courts are “still open.”

Let Congress, then, cite for contempt an officer under the control of a co-equal, the President, who refuses to appear and testify; but also let the other co-equal, the Courts, exercise its exclusive power to decide the merits of that legislative citation against an executive officer to preserve the concept of “checks and balances” among three co-equals.

A decision handed down by this third co-equal, the Final Arbiter, will put an end to a potential war of “perpetual check” now seething between the other co-equals.

That decision may not be the last. There will other cases, to sure. But the concept of three functioning co-equal branches of government jealosuly guarding each of their vested powers remains preserved.

sa tingin ko lang hA, kaya controlen ni GUYA (GMA) ang SC. nacontrol nya ang HS of REPRESENTATIVES d ba?. sana mali ako.

———————————————————

we people have the right to know. why need clearances from president? eh kng ayaw nya bahala na tayo? naging inutil na ko. so that we cant spell fishy? may malisya na agad d ba? d kasi makakatiwalaan ang presidente eh, hay naku. idol ko yan si GUYA (GMA) kaya lang wala na akong tiwala sa kanya. sabi d tatakbo sa 2004. nagkaroon lng ng plano para manalo tumakbo na. d sabi makakatiwalaan eh. opssss wrong grammar pasensya na

_________________________________________________________________

it is just a HILAW NA GAG ORDER

Well said domingoarong.

I view the context of EO 464 as a prudent step in the light of the verbal abuses committed by an equal body, the Senate, to a cabinet member belonging to the Executive body. The refusal or reluctance of the cabinet member to speak up is not so much my concern here than the high-handed manner he was cheaply dishonored by so-called honorable senators. It was unfortunate how this member was shabbily treated with utmost disrespect – even called a pimp. Consider the fact that a cabinet member is an extension of the President it behooves the Senators to extend some degree of courtesy as they would normally accord to an equal, the President. Too, the Senators should have observed proper decorum appropriate with the respectability and dignity of the position they hold.

The issue really has stemmed from the much abused procedure they call “in aid of legislation” but in fact a systematic way to extract information in a high-handed manner, some even behaving like police interrogators, much to the embarrassment of intimidated witnesses who they fondly call “resource speakers.”

EO 464 is viewed by many as a gag order. On the ground level, I view it only as an order that requires prior presidential approval for those who are called to appear before a legislative hearing. It is not an outright rejection of a congressional invitation. Surely, the Senators know their own rules that nobody can just show up and volunteer to appear at any senate hearing without their prior consent. Would it be wrong then if the Executive body requires its members to do the same? If the Senators are selective of people they want to invite, shouldn’t the Executive body also be carefully selective on who should appear?

Appearance of witnesses at legislative hearings is part of the mandate which the Executive cannot ignore. But the Senate should respect also the Executive privilege if it requests that sensitive matters be discussed in Executive Session. As we have seen, hearsay testimonies and unproven allegations have been allowed in all the hearings allegedly in aid of legislation, but in the process left a host of damaged reputations. It is small wonder many upright thinkers look at those senate investigations as purely benefit shows sponsored by politicians who have personal agenda.

bakit pinagtutuunan natin ng pansin ang legality ng EO464??

Sina Gen. Gudani at Lt. col. Balutan ay kinasuhan ni Gen Senga ng
insubordination dahil sa pagsuway daw sa utos ng commander in
chief.
Tanong:
1) Inalam mo ba Gen. Senga kung ang nag bigay ng utos ay
tunay na commander in chief o peke?
2) hinayaan mo ba na malaman natin at ng buong sandatahang lakas
kung tunay nga ang kanilang kinikilalang puno?
3) di ba para maging legal ang isang Executive Order ay dapat
lamang na manggaling ang kautusan sa pinunong walang kwestyon
ang pagiging isang lider?
4) Bakit pinagpipilitan mo pa rin na parusahan ang gustong maglahad
ng katotohanan gayong ang mga retired generals ay naniniwalang
walang nilabag na batas ang dalawang opisyal?
5) Nasa mindanao ka ba ng mga panahon na yun para pabulaanan at
pangigigilan ang dalawang opisyal na yan na gustong mag lahad ng
kanilang nalalaman?
6) Natatakot ka ba na lumabas na peke ang iyong commander in chief
at lahat ng kanyang inapoint sa pwesto ay illegal din gaya mo?

KAYA WALA NG DAPAT PANG PAGTALUNAN DITO….. PEKE ANG PANGULO AT LAHAT NG KANYANG KAUTUSAN AY INVALIDO RIN….TAPOS!!!!!

sa mga abogado dyan, totoo ba ito…

“XXXThe revised administration code requires any law or executive order to be published in the Official Gazette or in any newspaper of general circulation before it takes effect 15 days after publication.XXX”

from ernesto maceda’s column in the tribune

oo nga naman, no? malay mo nga naman kung saan nanggaling yung eo na ala una y media ng madaling araw sa iyo ipinapakita.

by the way isang patunay pa iyan na gag order ang eo 464. alam ng malacanang na magsasalita na si gudani at dahil di nila kaya itong impluwensiyahan, pagbabawalan na lang nila ang pagpunta nung tao sa hearing.

di ba ang kautusan ng commander in chief (na pigilan ang pagsalita sa mga opisyal ng pamahalaan) ay nagmula sa eo? dahil nilabag ni gudani ang eo na issued by the president, kaya sinasabing he broke the chain of command. otherwise what order is there? may written order ba? stemming from what? kaya nga naglabas ng eo ay para may “legal” na basehan ang pagpigil nila sa pagsalita ni gudani. kung totoo ang sinasabi mo na di sa eo kundi sa utos lang ang basehan ng pagpigil sa pagsalita ni gudani, mas malilintikan si gma. kaya nga hinabol ang paggawa ng eo at ala una y media ng madaling araw ito ibinigay kay gudani ay para may “legal” na pagpigil sa kanyang pagtetestigo. that’s why kung invalid ang eo, walang violation na ginawa si gudani.

Hi mariatoo :

Allow me to respond on your query in the matter of publication of laws or executive prior to its effectivity :

As a general rule, a law usually takes effect after 15 days following the completion of their publication in the official Gazette, unless otherwise provided (Art.2, New Civil Code)

In cases of administrative issuances including an executive order, the requirement for its effectivity is laid out in Book VII of the Administrative Code of 19887. (Please see, for complete text: http://www.chanrobles.com/administrativecode of the philippines7.htm)

In the case of PSAEI v. Torres 212 SCRA, the SC adverted to its ruling in Tanada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446 which provides among others that “xxx Administrative rules and regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation” (p.447).

Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules of guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties.”(p.448)
( For further reading, see Rodriguez’ Administrative Law, 4th Edition(1994))

Thus, in my humble legal opinion , I submit that the questionable EO need not be published in the light of the foregoing.

Erratum:

1. The word “order” should follow after executive in the first sentence. Hence, it should read “executive order”

2. The link on the full text of Book VII of the Admin Code should have been : http://www.chanrobles.com/administrativecodeofthephilippines7.htm

Thank you for bearing with me, mariatoo.

thanks, indio lawless! pero di ba rin dahil sa malawakang sakop ng eo na ito, as in kung sino maisipan ni st michael-protected-gma na isama, na kailangan may publication nito? kung cabinet secretaries lang ang sakop, oks lang na personal copies sila. pero dahil ang eo na ito ay sakop ang madlang public officials in the executive dept, who probably number in the thousands, not to mention its consequences on another branch of govt (clipping congressional powers), di ba marapat lang ilathala muna si eo 464? maraming directly apektado.

at paano mo effectively and validly mai-inform para maging bound sa eo na ito ang isang tulad ni gudani na naka sked nang tumestigo at early in the morning bibigyan ng kopya ng eo? ganun na lang ba tayo magbigay ng due notice? parang laro ng “taya”. ganun na lang ba tayo?

Hi there mariatoo :

Personally, it is my belief that the controversial EO is patently unconstitutional, particularly as to its substantive provisions, but not as to its non-publication.

I share Fr. Berna’s view that the EO was cleverly crafted. In the same vain that I agree on some points raised by Amb. Maceda but not as to the non-publication of the said controversial EO.

The non-publication of such can be excused in the light of the cases I earlier cited ( Tuvera as reiterated in the PSAEI v. Torres case) which allows non-publication of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules of guidelines to be followed by their subordinates.

This should be distinguished with regulations including EO’s that is/are issued for purposes of enforcing or implementing an existing law pursuant to a valid delegation.

Said regulations need to be publish in full for the information of the general public. Absence of such publication will render the regulation legally invalid,defective and unenforceable. This principle in law , I assume, is what Amb. Maceda , who also happens to be lawyer, may thought in the first place when he wrote his piece which appeared in the Daily Tribune today.

To the lawyers and constitutional scholars who may chance this comment, can you please help me clarify the following –
if the supreme court declares EO 464 as unconstitutional, can those who were directly affected by the EO like BG Gudani and LTC Balutan seek redress against GMA for willful and culpable violation of the constitution? Someone could have advised her that EO 464 could be unconstitutional yet, she signed it and had it implemented. Could the issuance this EO be another ground for impeachment under the grave abuse of authority in issuing an unconstitutional order? This is just a thought.

thanks again, indio lawless! =)

Interesting question assumptionista.

If Gudani will invoke that he could not follow an unlawful order, well, it will be up to the court martial to determine that. You see, this becomes a legal issue so the first question would be what constitutes an unlawful order? I have my personal thoughts on that but I won’t tell you because you’d say it is just speculation. I’d rather we wait what the court martial says.

Of course, the military must defend and protect the Constitution, but it is not a monopoly of the military. The civilians have the same obligations too.

As to the 15 days rule on publication, I still believe it does not apply on military orders given by a superior officer to a subordinate so as to validate the order. An EO is a civilian order and certain procedures are followed for its effectivity. But as the govt has civil procedures to follow so does the military whose set of rules are so rigid that you’d think there’s an authoritarian rule or dictatorship in the military.

If Gudani had been informed beforehand a simple order DO NOT appear at the senate hearing, it becomes immaterial if he knew about the EO, neither is his opinion that he was being prevented from exposing the election anomalies, as all this put aside, Gudani had clearly disobeyed an order. His only recourse is to prove that the order did not reach him until he was already at the Senate.

His problem is that he was quoted many times saying he was not afraid to disobey the order for the sake of truth. What does that imply? Gudani is a good soldier. He knows the rules and as a good officer and gentleman, you said, a good soldier does not question an order. Of course, it is his right not to follow the order, but he has to justify that at the court martial.

Thanks.

wag na kayong umangal. aminin niyo man o hindi, nakapuntos talaga si pandak. kaya ‘see you in court’ na lang… hehehe

asan si Rizal? nabaril, patay na. asan si Jesus?

ang pagkamatay ng isang tao ay di nangangahulugan na tama ang kanyang ipinaglalaban. assuming, for the sake of argument, na i-firing squad sina Gudani and Balutan, will that show the truth? si GMA nga, sabi ni Mirriam, ia-assasinate din di ba? but will that show that GMA is telling the truth? 😉

hay talaga naman oo……kahit si satanas mahihiya sa pinagagagawa ng gobyernong ito….

check this thing out: http://www.sapul.com

-MANINDIGAN SA KATOTOHANAN

[…] Other anomalous and unlawful acts which includes the recent controversies on the Venable contract, Executive Order 464, Northrail project, and the calibrated preemptive response (CPR) policy. […]