Executive privilege

On 2 April 2025, Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin informed Senator Imee Marcos, chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, that Cabinet officials would no longer be attending the Senate probe into the arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte.

This decision followed a 20 March hearing were key figures, including Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, Interior Secretary Jonvic Remulla, and P/Maj. Gen. Nicolas Torre III of the Philippine National Police gave detailed testimonies. Senator Marcos, however, deemed the information they gave insufficient and demanded more.

The refusal to participate in further hearings hinges on the invocation of Executive Privilege, a principle that has long been recognized as essential to effective governance, as affirmed in the Almonte v. Vasquez case. Executive privilege enables the President and executive branch officials to withhold certain confidential communications from the legislative and judicial branches, safeguarding critical aspects of governance from unwarranted public scrutiny.

The core purpose of executive privilege is to protect the confidentiality of discussions within the executive branch, particularly those involving the President. Such a protection allows for candid deliberations, essential for informed decision-making and national security. Historically, this privilege has been invoked to ensure that sensitive matters — be they policy discussions, private correspondence, or classified intelligence — remain shielded from political interference.

In 2005, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order 464 requiring executive department heads to seek presidential consent before testifying in congressional probes. This move echoed an earlier instance in 2015 when then PNP Chief Alan Purisima invoked executive privilege to avoid testifying about President Benigno Aquino’s handling of the Mamasapano incident.

It is crucial to understand that executive privilege is not an absolute barrier to transparency, but rather a safeguard tailored to protect sensitive information, such as presidential discussions, military strategies, diplomatic communications, and ongoing investigations. As established in Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, this privilege also shields matters of national security, military operations, and confidential legal matters.

The decision to keep the Cabinet officials from further participating in the Senate inquiry is not a rejection of oversight, but a recognition of the need to protect critical executive communications.

While Congress’ power to investigate is enshrined in Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution, it must be exercised responsibly, with due respect for the rights of those involved, especially when national security or executive function could be compromised.

Executive privilege serves as a protective mechanism, ensuring that the executive branch can operate without fear that sensitive internal deliberations will be exposed in a manner that could endanger the national interest and the effectiveness of governance. Without it, the candid, secure discussions necessary for sound policymaking could be stifled by the pressures of public scrutiny.

In balancing this privilege with legislative oversight, it is important to remember that the aim is not to obstruct justice or avoid accountability, but to protect the executive’s vital role within the constitutional framework. By restricting Cabinet officials’ participation in the Senate inquiry, the executive branch preserves its ability to function confidentially and effectively — ensuring that national security, diplomatic relations, and strategic decision-making remain protected.

As the nation watches, the unfolding of this issue will undoubtedly illuminate the delicate balance between executive privilege and legislative oversight. More importantly, it will remind us that respect among the branches of government is essential to preserve the integrity of our democratic institutions.