Neri v Senate Committees (Constitution)

Neri v Senate Committees

GR No. 180643March 25, 2008

Section 6. The President shall have an official residence. The salaries of the President and Vice-President shall be determined by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the term of the incumbent during which such increase was approved. They shall not receive during their tenure any other emolument from the Government or any other source.

Leonardo-de Castro, J:

FACTS:

(1) On April 21, 2007, the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) entered into a contract with Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) for the supply of equipment and services for the National Broadband Network (NBN) Project in the amount of U.S. $ 329,481,290 (approximately P16 Billion Pesos). The Project was to be financed by the People's Republic of China.Respondent Committees initiated the investigation by sending invitations to certain personalities and cabinet officials involved in the NBN Project. Petitioner was among those invited. He was summoned to appear and testify on September 18, 20, and 26 and October 25, 2007. However, he attended only the September 26 hearing, claiming he was "out of town" during the other dates.

On September 26, 2007, petitioner testified before respondent Committees for eleven (11) hours. He disclosed that then Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Chairman Benjamin Abalos offered him P200 Million in exchange for his approval of the NBN Project. He further narrated that he informed President 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". In particular, he refused to answer the questions on (a) whether or not President Arroyo followed up the NBN Project, (b) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it, and (c) whether or not she directed him to approve.

ISSUE:

HELD:

Petition granted. Order dated Jan. 30, 2008 citing petitioner Romulo L. Neri in contempt of the Senate Committees and directing his arrest and detention, is hereby nullified.

RATIO:

(1) The Communications Elicited by the Three (3) Questions are Covered by Executive Privilege

A - There is a Recognized Claim of Executive Privilege despite the Revocation of E.O. 464.

The U.S. Court recognized a great public interest in preserving "the confidentiality of conversations that take place in the President's performance of his official duties."In Senate v.Ermita, the concept of presidential communications privilege is fully discussed.

Elements of presidential communications privilege:

1) The protected communication must relate to a "quintessential and non-delegable presidential power."

2) The communication must be authored or "solicited and received" by a close advisor of the President or the President himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in "operational proximity" with the President.

3) The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the information sought "likely contains important evidence" and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.

The right to public information, like any other right, is subject to limitation. Section 7 of Article III provides:

The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

More than anything else, though, the right of Congress or any of its Committees to obtain information in aid of legislation cannot be equated with the people's right to public information. The former cannot claim that every legislative inquiry is an exercise of the people's right to information.

B - The Claim of Executive Privilege is Properly Invoked

The Congress must not require the executive to state the reasons for the claim with such particularity as to compel disclosure of the information which the privilege is meant to protect. This is a matter of respect to a coordinate and co-equal department.

(2)Respondent Committees Committed Grave Abuse of Discretion in Issuing the Contempt Order

(a) There being a legitimate claim of executive privilege, the issuance of the contempt Order suffers from constitutional infirmity.

(b) Respondent Committees did not comply with the requirement laid down in Senate v. Ermita that the invitations should contain the "possible needed statute which prompted the need for the inquiry," along with "the usual indication of the subject of inquiry and the questions relative to and in furtherance thereof."Unfortunately, despite petitioner's repeated demands, respondent Committees did not send him an advance list of questions.

(c) Third, a reading of the transcript of respondent Committees' January 30, 2008 proceeding reveals that only a

minority of the members of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee was present during the deliberation.

Section 18 of the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation provides that:

"The Committee, by a vote of majority of all its members, may punish for contempt any witness before it

who disobeys any order of the Committee or refuses to be sworn or to testify or to answer proper questions

by the Committee or any of its members."

(d) Fourth, we find merit in the argument of the OSG that respondent Committees likewise violated Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution, requiring that the inquiry be in accordance with the “duly published rules of procedure."

(e) And fifth, respondent Committees' issuance of the contempt Order is arbitrary and precipitate. It must be pointed out that respondent Committees did not first pass upon the claim of executive privilege and inform petitioner of their ruling.

Correspondences of petitioner include an expression of his willingness to testify again, provided he "be furnished in advance" copies of the questions.

(3) Grave abuse of discretion means "such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law."