Cited Laws
accordingly seek judicial relief and affirmation of its rights and prerogatives under the Constitution if and when challenged or interfered with by any branch, department agency, or instrumentality of the government or by any individual: Now, therefore be it. Resolved by the Senate of the Philippines , To authorize and direct, as it hereby authorizes and directs the filing of the appropriate petition in the Supreme Court to assert the power of the Senate in inquires in aid of legislation. [16] x x x x Invoking Senate of the Philippines Executive v. Executive Secretary Ermita (Senate v. Ermita) [17] and related case law, the petition seeks to declare the Memorandum as unconstitutional and further to (i) require the invited Executive Department officials to attend the hearings of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and its other committees; (ii) restrain the enforcement of the Memorandum and all other issuances that would prevent invited Executive Department officials from attending hearings of the various committees of the Senate; (iii) restrain the Executive Department from issuing directives preventing invited Executive Department officials from attending hearings of the various committees of the Senate; (iv) restrain the Executive Department from issuing directives to law enforcement agencies to obstruct Senate proceedings or withhold assistance in the enforcement of the Senate's compulsory processes; and (v) restrain Executive Department officials, especially the Secretary of Health, from complying with the Memorandum . The petition does not mention that the Senate or any of its Committee had ruled on the jurisdictional challenge raised in the Memorandum . We therefore infer that this jurisdictional challenge has prudently remained unresolved. Finally, petitioner repleads the aforesaid allegations in support of their application for a writ of preliminary injunction. In their Comment, [18] respondents Executive Secretary Medialdea and DOH Secretary Duque, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), pray that the petition be immediately dismissed. They essentially argue: One . Petitioner failed to prove the existence of an actual case or controversy. It mischaracterized the subject hearings as inquiries in aid of legislation. In reality, petitioner conducted the subject hearings in the exercise of its oversight functions (that is, to confront and exact accountability , to use the words of Senate v. Ermita itself when it distinguished the power to inquire in aid of legislation under Section 21 [19] of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the power to inquire in aid of confrontation to seek accountability of the officers of the Executive Branch under Section 22 of Article VI of the Constitution). For the focal point of the inquiries was not the 2020 COA Report but the alleged anomalies in the measures undertaken for the Covid-19 pandemic response, specifically: a. To identify persons whom the Committee finds as accountable and responsible