So, what of the RIGHTS the Sovereign retains and, under Sec. 21, Art. VI, expressly commands that: “The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such [legislative] inquries shall be respected”?

One of these retained “rights” Arroyo fall guys (citizens, nonetheless) will, of course, surely implead is the valued privilege against self-incrimination or “testimonial compulsion”–”a protection of the innocent though a shelter for the guilty.”

Can a Power the Sovereign merely delegates or lends to Government nullify a “right” the Sovereign invokes for protection?

Arroyo’s fall guy can be cited for contempt (and punished by the Court and not by the Legislative), but the fall guy, a mere “subordinate,” cannot be compelled or coerced to give information received “in confidence” from a “superior.”

There is no question hour per se, the decision just used that as an analogy.

Bernas made a good explanation on the decision. You might want to read it.

These are awesome Executive Powers, don’t they have any weight at all?

Can these powers of a co-equal be just as easily superseded by the authority to inquire “in aid” of the Power to Make Law?

Incidentally, why rely on the concept of a “Executive Privilege” as defined by U.S. precedents and law books on the U.S. Constitution?

I think these citations are irrelevant, inapplicable, since the U.S. Executive does not possess the “Power of Control,” claiming the exercise of “control” over executive officers to be merely part of a nebulous (and often controversial) “Executive Privilege.”

I suppose “power” cannot be compared to “privilege.”

A “Question Hour” and the meaning of the term “interpellation” belong to rules that govern a parliament, a Prime Minister removable by a majority–not to a presidential system such as ours.

If the Legislative is now recognized to possess the authority to “summon” (synonymous to “request”?), tantamount to the Power of Control over the “alter ego” of the Executive under the congressional authority to inquire “in aid of legislation” and to “interpellate,” is there a need for us to shift to parliamentary from presidential?

The Supreme Court in it decision and the 1987 Constitution say we are now–a sort-of half-way parliamentary with officers of an inutile Executive sort-of answerable to whims of a co-equal yet omnipotent Legislative.

And with the Legislative doing all the “investigation” it can think of, do we still need to have (and spend millions for) the services of a constitutional “investigator,” the Ombudsman?