This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-09-04 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Senate v. Ermita[22] expounds on the constitutional underpinning of the relationship between the Executive Department and the Legislative Department to explain why there should be no implied authorization or presumptive authorization to invoke executive privilege by the President's subordinate officials, as follows:When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege. They are not exempt by the mere fact that they are department heads. Only one executive official may be exempted from this power - the President on whom executive power is vested, hence, beyond the reach of Congress except through the power of impeachment. It is based on he being the highest official of the executive branch, and the due respect accorded to a co-equal branch of governments which is sanctioned by a long-standing custom. (Underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2006-09-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The rule on finality of decisions, orders or resolutions of a judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative body is "not a question of technicality but of substance and merit," the underlying consideration therefore, being the protection of the substantive rights of the winning party.[39] Nothing is more settled in law than that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.[40] | |||||