admin
COURSE: ADMIN
PROFESSOR: ARRIOLA
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
6.
GUDANI
VS. SENGA
FACTS:
On Sept. 22, 2005, Sen. Biazon invited several senior officers of the AFP, including Gen. Gudani, to appear at a public hearing before the Senate
Committee on National Defense and Security concerning the conduct of the 2004 elections wherein allegations of massive cheating and the
“Hello Garci” tapes emerged. AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Senga issued a
Memorandum, prohibiting Gen. Gudani, Col. Balutan and company from appearing before the Senate Committee without Presidential approval. Nevertheless, Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan testified before said Committee, prompting Gen. Senga to order them subjected to
General Court Martial proceedings for willfully violating an order of a superior officer. In the meantime, President Arroyo issued EO 464, which was subsequently declared unconstitutional.
ISSUES:
Whether or not E.O. 464 which provides among others that no AFP personnel shall appear before any congressional or senate hearing without her approval is constitutional? YES
W/N the case can be subject to judicial review?
HELD:
Insofar as E.O. 464 compelled officials of the executive branch to seek prior presidential approval before appearing before Congress, the notion of executive control also comes into consideration. The impression is wrong. The ability of the President to require a military official to secure prior consent before appearing in Congress pertains to wholly different and independent specie of presidential authority—the commander-in-chief powers of the President. By tradition and jurisprudence, the commander-in-chief powers of the President are not encumbered by the same degree of restriction as that which may attach to executive privilege or executive control.
SC holds that the President has constitutional authority to do so, by virtue of her power as commander-in-chief, and that as a consequence a military officer who
PROFESSOR: ARRIOLA
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
6.
GUDANI
VS. SENGA
FACTS:
On Sept. 22, 2005, Sen. Biazon invited several senior officers of the AFP, including Gen. Gudani, to appear at a public hearing before the Senate
Committee on National Defense and Security concerning the conduct of the 2004 elections wherein allegations of massive cheating and the
“Hello Garci” tapes emerged. AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Senga issued a
Memorandum, prohibiting Gen. Gudani, Col. Balutan and company from appearing before the Senate Committee without Presidential approval. Nevertheless, Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan testified before said Committee, prompting Gen. Senga to order them subjected to
General Court Martial proceedings for willfully violating an order of a superior officer. In the meantime, President Arroyo issued EO 464, which was subsequently declared unconstitutional.
ISSUES:
Whether or not E.O. 464 which provides among others that no AFP personnel shall appear before any congressional or senate hearing without her approval is constitutional? YES
W/N the case can be subject to judicial review?
HELD:
Insofar as E.O. 464 compelled officials of the executive branch to seek prior presidential approval before appearing before Congress, the notion of executive control also comes into consideration. The impression is wrong. The ability of the President to require a military official to secure prior consent before appearing in Congress pertains to wholly different and independent specie of presidential authority—the commander-in-chief powers of the President. By tradition and jurisprudence, the commander-in-chief powers of the President are not encumbered by the same degree of restriction as that which may attach to executive privilege or executive control.
SC holds that the President has constitutional authority to do so, by virtue of her power as commander-in-chief, and that as a consequence a military officer who