Practice question
A House requests a department head to explain execution of an existing program solely under Section 22. The secretary declines that discretionary question-hour appearance. To compel attendance, Members rely only on the request’s new title, “mandatory summons,” while disclaiming any Section 21 inquiry in aid of legislation and identifying no other lawful basis. Which analysis follows Senate v. Ermita?
- Changing the request’s label alone does not transform the discretionary question hour into a compulsory Section 21 inquiry.
- Every congressional request is compulsory regardless of constitutional basis.
- Section 22 and Section 21 are legally indistinguishable.
- A label automatically establishes a legislative purpose and all required procedures.
- A department head may therefore refuse all genuine legislative inquiries forever.
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article VI: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777 et al., April 20, 2006, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169777_2006.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.