SC hears oral arguments on EO 464 today

The Supreme Court will hear today the oral arguments of the government and parties opposing Executive Order 464, which requires Cabinet members and police and military officials to get permission from President Arroyo before appearing in congressional hearings.

In today’s face-off between government lawyers and opponents of EO 464, the SC will focus on the issue of whether Malacañang committed grave abuse of discretion in implementing EO 464 before its publication or if it violated the Constitution.

Sen. Joker Arroyo, representing the opposition in the Senate, was slated to be the first to argue that EO 464 hampers legislative inquiries and violates the principle of separation of powers.

Senator Arroyo is expected to echo the arguments of the 40,000-strong Integrated Bar of the Philippines whose separate petition was consolidated with the rest of the opponents of EO 464.

The militant groups Bayan Muna, Courage and Counsels for the Defense of Liberties have eight minutes each in which to argue whether EO 464 is unconstitutional, if it violates the constitutional provisions that legislative power shall be vested in Congress, and that a public office is a public trust.

Former Solicitor General Frank Chavez also has eight minutes to discuss EO 464’s infringement on the people’s right to information on matters of public concern.

The Alternative Law Groups Inc., a network of lawyers and civic organizations, will tackle the failure of Malacañang to meet the required publication of EO 464 before its implementation.

It will also argue that the order violates the right to freedom of expression and public consultation.

PDP-Laban will argue that Malacañang’s order violated a constitutional provision which states that subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, "the State adopts and implements a policy of full disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest."

The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the government, has 25 minutes to refute the arguments of EO 464’s critics. — Jose Rodel Clapano, Marvin Sy