Practice question
A Senate committee conducts a genuine inquiry in aid of legislation under duly published rules. A department head is summoned concerning facts relevant to a proposed law. No valid executive-privilege claim is asserted. The official relies solely on a directive requiring presidential consent for question-hour appearances and says it bars attendance at every congressional proceeding. Which response is most consistent with Senate v. Ermita?
- The question-hour consent rule automatically bars every legislative summons.
- Calling an inquiry legislative eliminates every witness right.
- The distinction means no department head can ever be questioned by Congress.
- A question-hour consent requirement cannot itself be extended into a blanket bar against a proper Section 21 inquiry.
- The Senate must abandon legislative inquiries whenever a program is administered by the executive.
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.