G.R. No. 257608 - The Senate of the Philippines, represented by Vicente C. Sotto III, et al. vs. Salvador C. Medialdea and Francisco T. Duque III

In 2020, Congress appropriated unprecedented funds to fight the COVID-19 pandemic; the Department of Health (DOH) alone received ₱77 billion, including ₱37 billion for PPE.
The 2020 Annual Audit Report of the Commission on Audit (COA) disclosed a deficiency of ₱67,323,186,570.57 in COVID-19 response funds.

Spurred by the COA findings, the Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Blue Ribbon) began “inquiries in aid of legislation” into DOH budget utilization, PPE procurement, vaccine contracts, and related issues.
Multiple Senate resolutions (Nos. 858, 859, 880) directed or supplemented inquiries into COVID-19 fund disbursements, abuses, and accountability.

President Duterte, through Executive Secretary Medialdea, issued a memorandum directing all Executive Department officials “to no longer appear before or attend” the Senate Blue Ribbon hearings, citing:

Executive inability to focus on the people’s right to health during the pandemic.
An alleged shift of the hearings from legislative inquiry to preliminary investigation and accountability proceedings.

The memorandum commanded “strict compliance,” reminding officials of their constitutional duties and promising Executive investigations of corruption through proper forums.

Invited officials, including DOH Secretary Duque, withdrew from subsequent hearings, invoking the memorandum.
On November 9, 2021, the Senate adopted Resolution No. 131 authorizing the filing of a petition in the Supreme Court to:

The Senate lacked jurisdiction to conduct COVID-19 fund hearings, which fell under the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created by the “Bayanihan” Acts.
The petition was moot or academic, as the Senate had already issued its report and bills addressing health-worker benefits.
The memorandum was within the President’s discretion, invoking separation of powers and emergency powers under the Bayanihan Acts.
The petition should have been filed in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, not the Supreme Court.

Whether a direct petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the Supreme Court is a “plain, speedy, and adequate” remedy when the Senate has not first resolved the Executive’s jurisdictional challenge under its own rules.

Whether the subject hearings properly constitute “inquiries in aid of legislation” under Article VI, Section 21 of the Constitution and the Senate’s published rules, or whether they fall exclusively within the mandate of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee under the Bayanihan Acts.

Whether the October 4, 2021 memorandum, by directing Executive officials to boycott the Senate hearings, unconstitutionally impairs the Senate’s power of inquiry in aid of legislation and violates the separation of powers.