180643) is a controversial 9–6[2] ruling of the Supreme Court of the Philippines which affirmed the invocation of executive privilege by petitioner Romulo Neri, member of the Cabinet of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, regarding questions asked during a Congressional inquiry on the controversial multimillion-dollar National Broadband Network (NBN) Project.
The Supreme Court finally affirmed this ruling on September 4 and 23, 2008 by denying the defendant Senate Committees' first and second Motions for Reconsideration.
This project was contracted by the Philippine Government with the Chinese firm Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE), which involved the amount of US$329,481,290.
When he testified before the Senate Committees, he disclosed that then Commission on Elections Chairman Benjamin Abalos, brokering for ZTE, offered him P200 million in exchange for his approval of the NBN Project.
He further narrated that he informed President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo about the bribery attempt and that she instructed him not to accept the bribe.
However, when probed further on what they discussed about the NBN Project, petitioner refused to answer, invoking "executive privilege."
Later on, respondent Committees issued a Subpoena Ad Testificandum to petitioner, requiring him to appear and testify on November 20, 2007.
Ermita invoked the privilege on the ground that "the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s Republic of China," and given the confidential nature in which these information were conveyed to the President, Neri "cannot provide the Committee any further details of these conversations, without disclosing the very thing the privilege is designed to protect."
On November 29, Neri replied to the Show Cause Letter and explained that he did not intend to snub the Senate hearing, and requested that if there be new matters that were not yet taken up during his first appearance, he be informed in advance so he can prepare himself.
He added that his non-appearance was upon the order of the President, and that his conversation with her dealt with delicate and sensitive national security and diplomatic matters relating to the impact of the bribery scandal involving high government officials and the possible loss of confidence of foreign investors and lenders in the Philippines.
Neri filed this present petition asking the Court to nullify both the Show Cause Letter and the Contempt Order for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and stressed that his refusal to answer the three questions was anchored on a valid claim to executive privilege in accordance with the ruling in the landmark case of Senate v. Ermita (G.R.
For its part, the Senate Committees argued that they did not exceed their authority in issuing the assailed orders because there is no valid justification for Neri's claim to executive privilege.
Citing the case of United States v. Nixon (418 U.S. 683), the Court laid out the three elements needed to be complied with in order for the claim to executive privilege to be valid.
And as to the third element, there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
In the present case, respondent Committees failed to show a compelling or critical need for the answers to the three questions in the enactment of any law under Sec.
As ruled in Senate v. Ermita, "the oversight function of Congress may be facilitated by compulsory process only to the extent that it is performed in pursuit of legislation."
In determining whether Congress correctly ordered Neri's arrest for his refusal to answer the three questions, a distinction must be first laid down between Sections 21 and 22, Article VI of the Philippine Constitution.
22 pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress' oversight function over the executive department.
It has been settled that the specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial outweighs the President’s generalized interest in confidentiality.
In contrast, the responsibility of the criminal court turns entirely on its ability to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that certain named individuals did or did not commit specific crimes.
Nevertheless, his refusal to answer based on the claim of executive privilege does not violate the people's right to information on matters of public concern simply because Sec.
As laid down in Senate v. Ermita, "the demand of a citizen for the production of documents pursuant to his right to information does not have the same obligatory force as a subpoena duces tecum issued by Congress.
In fine, the Court gave five reasons for ruling that respondents exceeded their authority in issuing the assailed orders: 1.)
The demand of a citizen for the production of documents pursuant to his right to information does not have the same obligatory force as a subpoena duces tecum issued by Congress.