Practice question
A House invites a Cabinet secretary to explain the administration of an existing program. It expressly characterizes the event solely as a question hour under Section 22, not an inquiry in aid of legislation under Section 21. The secretary declines to appear without presidential consent. A legislator argues that all invitations to executive officials are compulsory because every congressional request is legally identical to an inquiry in aid of legislation. Which statement best reflects Senate v. Ermita?
- Every congressional invitation is compulsory regardless of its constitutional basis.
- A question-hour appearance is discretionary; it must be distinguished from compulsory attendance in a proper legislative inquiry.
- A secretary may refuse every congressional inquiry even when no valid privilege is asserted.
- The Constitution permits only question hours and abolishes legislative inquiries.
- The House can erase the distinction merely by calling ordinary oversight a criminal trial.
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Sections 21–22: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353
- Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777 et al., April 20, 2006, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/41069
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.