Title
The Senate of the Philippines, represented by Vicente C. Sotto III, et al. vs. Salvador C. Medialdea and Francisco T. Duque III
Case
G.R. No. 257608
Decision Date
Jul 5, 2022
Senate challenged President Duterte's memo barring executive officials from COVID-19 fund inquiry; SC dismissed petition as premature, citing Senate's internal remedies.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 257608)

Petitioner

The Senate of the Philippines, through its President, Pro Tempore, Majority and Minority Floor Leaders, and the Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, in their official and individual capacities.

Respondents

Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea and Secretary of Health Francisco T. Duque III, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General.

Key Dates

– COA 2020 Audit Report: noted ₱67.3 billion deficiency in COVID-19 funds
– Memorandum from Executive Secretary Medialdea: October 4, 2021
– Senate Resolution authorizing Supreme Court petition: November 9, 2021
– Supreme Court decision: July 5, 2022

Applicable Law

– 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 21 (legislative inquiries in aid of legislation) and Section 22 (oversight functions)
– Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, Section 3 (jurisdictional challenge)
– Rules of Court, Rule 65 (writ of certiorari)

Antecedents

The COA reported major deficiencies in DOH’s use of emergency appropriations for pandemic response. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and other Senate committees conducted hearings into DOH budget utilization, vaccine procurement, PPE purchases, and PhilHealth-private hospital payment claims.

Issuance of the Executive Memorandum

President Duterte, through Executive Secretary Medialdea, directed all Executive Department officials to cease attendance at Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearings. The Memorandum invoked separation of powers and the alleged shift of the hearings from legislative inquiry to fact-finding for criminal accountability, and emphasized the Executive’s focus on health-care mandates amid the pandemic.

Senate Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition

The Senate petitioned the Supreme Court to nullify the Memorandum, compel executive attendance at hearings, and restrain the Executive from issuing or enforcing directives obstructing the Senate’s inquiries.

Respondents’ Arguments

  1. No actual case or controversy exists; hearings were oversight under Section 22, not legislative inquiries under Section 21.
  2. The Senate lacked jurisdiction; a joint oversight committee under the Bayanihan Acts held exclusive investigative authority.
  3. The petition is moot and interlocutory as legislative action and committee reports have already been issued.
  4. The President’s Memorandum is a valid exercise of control and emergency powers and does not violate any rights of officials or the public.
  5. Political-question doctrine bars judicial review of such executive prerogatives.
  6. The proper remedy, if any, lies in the Regional Trial Court.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Court dismissed the petition and denied the application for a preliminary injunction, finding the petition premature.

Legal Reasoning

– A Rule 65 certiorari petition requires that no other plain, speedy, and adequate reme


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.