Neri v. Senate, 03252008 Decision (DISSENTING OPINION of Puno, Carpio-Morales, Carpio)

8/19/2019 Neri v. Senate, 03252008 Decision (DISSENTING OPINION of Puno, Carpio-Morales, Carpio)

1/67

Political Law Review: Legislative Inquiry

G.R. No. 180643 ROMULO L. NERI, in hi ca!acit" a #hai$%an o& the #o%%iion on'i(he$ E)*cation +#'E- an) a &o$%e$ i$ecto$ Gene$al o& the National Econo%ican) evelo!%ent *tho$it" +NE- v. /ENE #OMMIEE ON ##OUNILI2 OPULI# OI#ER/ IN5E/IGION/ +LUE RION-, /ENE #OMMIEE ON RE #OMMER#E, an) /ENE #OMMIEE ON NIONL EEN/E /E#URI2.

Promulgated:March 25, 2008

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xI//ENING OPINION

PUNO, C.J.: The giant question on the scope and use of executive privilege has cast a long shado on theongoing !enate inquir" regarding the alleged and attempted #ri#er" of high government o$cialsin the consummation of the %ational &road#and %etor' (%&%) *ontract of the Philippinegovernment+ ith the expanse and opaqueness of the constitutional doctrine of executiveprivilege, e need to open a indo to ena#le enough light to enter and illuminate the shadoit has cast on the case at #ar+ The tas' is not eas", as the nature of executive privilege is notstatic, #ut d"namic+ %onetheless, if there is a %orth !tar in this quest, it is that the end all of executive privilege is to promote pu#lic interest and no other+i$t, let * *n&*$l the &act o& the cae.

n .pril 2/, 200, the 1epartment of Transportation and *ommunications (1T*),through !ecretar" eandro Mendo3a, and 4hing ing Telecommunications 6quipment (4T6),

through its 7ice President u ong, executed in &oao, *hina, a *ontract for the !uppl" of 6quipment and !ervices for the %ational &road#and %etor' Pro9ect (%&%-4T6 *ontract) orth!; 8/,2=0+00 or approximatel" PhP /? #illion+@/A 4T6 is a corporation oned #" theBovernment of the Peoples Cepu#lic of *hina+@2A The %&%-4T6 *ontract as to #e Dnancedthrough a loan that ould #e extended #" the Peoples Cepu#lic of *hina+ President BloriaMacapagal-.rro"o allegedl" itnessed the signing of the contract+@


2/67


?+ P$ivile(e /!eech o& /enato$ Mi$ia% e&eno$/antia(o, delivered on %ovem#er 2>, 200, entitled Fnternational .greements in*onstitutional a: The!uspended CP-*hina (4T6) oan .greement+@=A

Ne$i v. /enate #o%%ittee +Ma$ch >, 008 )ientin( o!inion-

2

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn9


3/67


There are also th$ee +3- !en)in( ?ill in the !enate related to the investigations,namel":

/+ /enate ill No. 17;3, introduced #" /enato$ Man*el Ro=a III, entitled:.n .ct !u#9ecting Treaties, Fnternational or 6xecutive .greements FnvolvingHunding in the Procurement of Fnfrastructure Pro9ects, Boods, and *onsulting!ervices to #e Fncluded in the !cope and .pplication of Philippine Procurementas, .mending for the Purpose, Cepu#lic .ct %o+ =/8>, therise Inon as theBovernment Procurement Ceform .ct, and for ther Purposes+ @/0A

2+ /enate ill No. 17;4, introduced #" /enato$ Man*el Ro=a III, entitled:.n .ct Fmposing !afeguards in *ontracting oans *lassiDed as $cial1evelopment .ssistance, .mending for the Purpose, Cepu#lic .ct %o+ 8/82, as.mended #" Cepu#lic .ct %o+ 8555, therise Inon as the $cial 1evelopment.ssistance .ct of /==?, and for ther Purposes+@//A


4/67


n %ovem#er /


5/67


.ttached to petitioners letter as the letter of his la"er, .tt"+ .ntonio &autista, explaining thatpetitioners non-appearance last 20 %ovem#er 200 as upon the order of the Presidentinvo'ing executive privilege, as em#odied in !ec+ 6duardo C+ 6rmitas letter dated /8 (sic)%ovem#er 200, and that !ecretar" %eri honestl" #elieves that he has exhaustivel" andthoroughl" ansered all questions as'ed of him on the 4T6%&% contract except those relatingto his conversations ith the President+@) hours from its enforcement+ /O ORERE+ Fssued this , 008 )ientin( o!inion-

5

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn35


6/67


(!igned)PI /. #2ENOOO MIRIM EEN/OR /NIGOO

(!igned) UN PON#E ENRILEOO RN#I/ G. E/#UEROOO (!igned)RI#'R . GORONOO GREGORIO . 'ON/NO

UN MIGUEL . DUIRIO OER P. RRO2OORMON . RE5ILL, R+OO MNUEL M. LPIOO (!igned) (!igned)ENIGNO #. 9UINO IIIO PNILO M. L#/ONO (!igned) (!igned)LOREN . LEGRO M. . MRIGLOO NONIO . RILLNE/O EGRO . NGROOO (!igned)9UILINO 9. PIMENEL, R+OOO

.pproved: (!igned)MNN2 5ILLR!enate President O Mem#er, *ommittees on .ccounta#ilit" of Pu#lic $cers N Fnvestigations (&lue Ci##on) and %ational1efense N !ecurit"OO Mem#er, *ommittees on .ccounta#ilit" of Pu#lic $cers N Fnvestigations (&lue Ci##on), Trade N*ommerce and %ational 1efense N !ecurit"OOO Mem#er, *ommittee on %ational 1efense N !ecurit"

6x $cio (!igned) (!igned)9UILINO 9. PIMENEL, R.RN#I/ iAo N. PNGILINNMinorit" eader Ma9orit" eader (!igned) INGGO2 EER#IO E/RPresident Pro Temporare@


7/67


Peter *a"etano and #" his (petitioners) letter dated %ovem#er 2=, 200 to !enator .lan Peter*a"etano as *hairperson of the *ommittee on .ccounta#ilit" of Pu#lic $cers andFnvestigations+@/A and (>) petitioner did not

come to *ourt ith clean hands+@>2A

n March >, 2008, the ral .rgument as held+ Thereafter, the *ourt ordered the parties tosu#mit their memoranda+ &oth parties su#mitted their Memoranda on March /, 2008+ n thesame da", the $ce of the !olicitor Beneral Dled a Motion for eave to Fntervene and to .dmit.ttached Memorandum+

Fn the ral .rgument held on March >, 2008, the *ourt delineated the folloing i*eto ?e $eolve), viz :

/+ hat communications #eteen the President and petitioner %eri are covered #" theprinciple of executive privilegeL@>+ The !tate recogni3es the vital role of communication and in&o$%ationin nation@?*il)in(+ (emphasis supplied)+ !ec+ 28+ !u#9ect to reasona#le conditions prescri#ed #" la, the !tate adopts andimplements a !olic" o& &*ll !*?lic )iclo*$e o& all it t$anactioninvolvin( !*?lic inte$et+ (emphasis supplied)

. complementar" provision is !ection / of .rticle F on the .ccounta#ilit" of Pu#lic $cers,hich states, viz :

!ec+/+ Pu#lic o$ce is a pu#lic trust+ Pu#lic o$cers and emplo"ees must at alltimes ?e acco*nta?le to the !eo!le, serve them ith utmost responsi#ilit",integrit", lo"alt" and e$cienc", act ith patriotism and 9ustice, and lead modestlives+ (emphasis supplied)


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn44


8/67


9/67


10/67


The *ourt upheld the 9urisdiction of the !enate to investigate the &uenavista and Tam#o#ong 6states 1eal through the !pecial *ommittee it created under !enate Cesolution %o+8+ The Cesolution read in relevant part, viz :

C6!TF% *C6.TF%B . !P6*F. *MMFTT66 T F%76!TFB.T6 TG6 &6%.7F!T..%1 TG6 T.M&&%B 6!T.T6! 16.+

xxx xxx xxxC6!761, That a !pecial *ommittee, #e, as it here#" is, created, composed of

Dve mem#ers to #e appointed #" the President of the !enate to investigate the&uenavista and Tam#o#ong 6states deal+ It hall ?e the )*t" o& the ai)#o%%ittee to )ete$%ine whethe$ the ai) !*$chae wa honet, vali),an) !$o!e$ an) whethe$ the !$ice involve) in the )eal wa &ai$ an) *t,the !a$tie $e!oni?le the$e&o$, an) an" othe$ &act the #o%%ittee %a")ee% !$o!e$ in the !$e%ie(emphasis supplied)

The su#9ect matter to #e investigated as clearl" stated in the Cesolution, and the *ourtentertain(ed) no dou#t as to the !enates authorit" to do so and as to the validit" of Cesolution%o+ 86>J for the folloing reasons, viz :

The transaction involved a questiona#le and allegedl" *nnecea$" an)i$$e(*la$ e=!en)it*$e o& no le than P>,000,000 o& !*?lic &*n), of

hich#on($e i the contit*tional (*a$)ian+ Ft also involve) (ove$n%enta(encie c$eate) ?" #on($e an) oBce$ whoe !oition it i withinthe !owe$ o& #on($e to $e(*late o$ even a?olih + .s a result of the "etuncompleted investigation, the inveti(atin( co%%ittee ha $eco%%en)e)an) the /enate ha a!!$ove) th$ee ?ill (/) prohi#iting the !ecretar" of Eustice or an" other department head from discharging functions and exercisingpoers other than those attached to his on o$ce, ithout previouscongressional authori3ationK (2) prohi#iting #rothers and near relatives of an"President of the Philippines from intervening directl" or indirectl" and in hatevercapacit" in transactions in hich the Bovernment is a part", more particularl"here the decision lies in the hands of executive or administrative o$cers hoare appointees of the PresidentK and (


11/67


such as to legislate, or to expel a Mem#erK and eve$" *etion which theinveti(ato$ i e%!owe$e) to coe$ce a witne to anwe$ %*t ?e%ate$ial o$ !e$tinent to the *?ect %atte$ o& the in*i$" o$inveti(ation. !o a itness ma" not #e coerced to anser a question thato#viousl" has no relation to the su#9ect of the inquir"+ &ut from this it )oe not&ollow that eve$" *etion that %a" ?e !$o!o*n)e) to a witne ?e%ate$ial to an" !$o!oe) o$ !oi?le le(ilation+ Fn other ords, the%ate$ialit" o& the *etion %*t ?e )ete$%ine) ?" it )i$ect $elation tothe *?ect o& the in*i$" an) not ?" it in)i$ect $elation to an" !$o!oe)

o$ !oi?le le(ilation. he $eaon i, that the neceit" o$ lacA o& neceit" &o$ le(ilative action an) the &o$% an) cha$acte$ o& the actionitel& a$e )ete$%ine) ?" the *% total o& the in&o$%ation to ?e (athe$e)a a $e*lt o& the inveti(ation, an) not ?" a &$action o& *ch in&o$%ationelicite) &$o% a in(le *etion.71J (emphasis supplied)

The *ourt found that the question propounded to .rnault as not immaterial to the investigationor self-incriminator"K thus, the petition for habeas corpus as dismissed+

. LooA at E=ec*tive !$ivile(e1. e


12/67


Fn /=>, in response this time to a !enate request, ashington alloed the !enate toexamine some parts of, #ut ithheld certain information in relation to correspondence #eteenthe Hrench government and the .merican minister thereto, and #eteen the minister and!ecretar" of !tate Candolph, #ecause the in&o$%ation co*l) !$ove )a%a(in( to the !*?licinte$et. The !enate did not challenge his action+@=A

Thus, Kahin(ton eta?lihe) a hito$ical !$ece)ent &o$ e=ec*tive !$ivile(e that i


13/67


The histor" of executive privilege shos that the !$ivile(e i t$on(et when *e) not o*to& a !e$onal )ei$e to avoi) c*l!a?ilit", ?*t ?ae) on a le(iti%ate nee) to !$otectthe P$ei)ent contit*tional %an)ate to e=ec*te the law, to *!hol) !$*)entiale!a$ation o& !owe$, an) a?ove all, to !$o%ote the !*?lic inte$et. nder thesecircumstances, #oth the *ongress and the 9udiciar" have aJorded most respect to the Presidentsprerogatives+@=2A

3. /co!e, Ain) an) conte=t o& e=ec*tive !$ivile(e

ith the ealth of literature on government privileges in the +!+, scholars have not reached aconsensus on the num#er of these privileges or the proper nomenclature to appl" to them+@=


14/67


.s enunciated in /enate v. E$%ita, a claim of executive privilege ma" #e valid or notdepending on the ($o*n) invoAe) to 9ustif" it and the conte=t in hich it is made+The groundinvolved in the case at #ar, as stated in the letter of !ecretar" 6rmita, is P$ei)entialco%%*nication !$ivile(e on information that might impair our)i!lo%atic a well aecono%ic $elation ith the Peoples Cepu#lic of *hina+ This particular issue is one of Drstimpression in our 9urisdiction+ .d9udication on executive privilege in the Philippines is still in itsinfanc" stage, ith the *ourt having had onl" a fe occasions to resolve cases that directl" dealith the privilege+

The 1;;> cae l%onte v. 5a*e108J involved an investigation #" the $ce of them#udsman of petitioner Eose T+ .lmonte, ho as the former *ommissioner of the 6conomicFntelligence and Fnvestigation &ureau (6FF&) and 7illamor *+ Pere3, *hief of the 6FF&Rs &udget andHiscal Management 1ivision+ .n anon"mous letter from a purported emplo"ee of the #ureau anda concerned citi3en, alleging that funds representing savings from unDlled positions in the 6FF&had #een illegall" dis#ursed, gave rise to the investigation+ The m#udsman required the&ureau to produce all documents relating to Personal !ervices Hunds for the "ear /=88K and allevidence, such as vouchers (salar") for the hole plantilla of 6FF& for /=88+ Petitioners refused tocompl"+

The #o*$t $eco(nie) a (ove$n%ent !$ivile(e against disclosure ith respect to tateec$et ?ea$in( on %ilita$", )i!lo%atic an) i%ila$ %atte$+ *iting U./. v. Ni=on, the

*ourt ac'noledged that the necessit" to protect !*?lic inte$et in can)i), o?ective an)even ?l*nt o$ ha$h o!inion in P$ei)ential )eciion@%aAin( *ti, 008 )ientin( o!inion-

/>

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn108http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn109http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn108http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn109


15/67


.gain, it is stressed that the information involved in #have did not fall under the categor" of Presidential communications+

More recentl", this *ourt decided the 006 cae /enate o& the Phili!!ine v. E$%ita.110J .tissue in this case as the constitutionalit" of 6xecutive rder (6) %o+ >?>, 6nsuring#servance of the Principle of !eparation of Poers, .dherence to the Cule on 6xecutivePrivilege and Cespect for the Cights of Pu#lic $cials .ppearing in egislative Fnquiries in .id of egislation under the *onstitution, and for ther Purposes+ The presidential issuance ashanded don at a time hen the Philippine !enate as conducting investigations on the alleged

overpricing of the %orth Cail Pro9ectK and the alleged fraud in the 200> national elections,exposed through the much-pu#lici3ed taped conversation allegedl" #eteen President BloriaMacapagal-.rro"o and *ommission on 6lections *ommissioner 7irgilio Barcillano+

6 %o+ >?> required heads of the executive departments of government and other governmento$cials and o$cers of the .rmed Horces of the Philippines and the Philippine %ational Police tosecure prior consent from the President #efore appearing in *ongressional inquiries+ *itingthe l%onte cae, the issuance emphasi3ed that the rule on conDdentialit" #ased on executiveprivilege as necessar" for the operation of government and rooted in the separation of poers+ .lluding to #oth thel%onte and #have cae, the issuance enumerated the 'inds of information covered #" executive privilege, viz : (/) conversations and correspondence #eteenthe President and the pu#lic o$cial covered #" the executive orderK (2) militar", diplomatic andother national securit" matters hich in the interest of national securit" should not #e divulgedK

() discussion in closed-door *a#inet meetingsK and (5) matters aJectingnational securit" and pu#lic order+

Cel"ing on 6 %o+ >?>, various government o$cials did not appear in the hearings of the !enateon the %orth Cail Pro9ect and the alleged fraud in the 200> elections, prompting various cause-oriented groups to Dle suits in the !upreme *ourt to see' the declaration of theunconstitutionalit" of 6 %o+ >?>+

The *ourt upheld the doctrine of executive privilege #ut found the Presidential issuance partl"inDrm, speciDcall" !ections 2(#) and < hich required government o$cials #elo the heads of executive departments to secure consent from the President #efore appearing in congressionalhearings and investigations+ The *ourt ac'noledged that *ongress has the right to o#taininformation from the executive #ranch henever it is sought in aid of legislation+ Thus, if theexecutive #ranch ithholds such information #ecause it is privileged, it must so assert it andstate the reason therefor and h" it must #e respected+

Fn this case, the *ourt again alluded to U./. v. Ni=on and also recogni3ed that Presidentialcommunications fall under the mantle of protection of executive privilege in the setting of alegislative inquir"+ &ut since the issue for resolution as the constitutionalit" of 6 %o+ >?> andnot hether an actual Presidential communication as covered #" the privilege, the *ourt didnot have occasion to rule on the same+Prescinding from these premises, e no discuss the tet an) !$oce)*$e to )ete$%ine thevali)it" o& the invocation o& e=ec*tive !$ivile(e cove$in( P$ei)ential co%%*nicationin a le(ilative in*i$".

I5. et an) P$oce)*$e to ete$%inethe 5ali)it" o& the Invocation o& E=ec*tive P$ivile(e#ove$in( P$ei)ential #o%%*nication in a Le(ilative In*i$"

Fn U./. v. Ni=on, the leading +!+ case on executive privilege, the +!+ !upreme *ourtemphasi3ed that its ruling addressed onl" the conQict #eteen the PresidentRs assertion of a (ene$alie) !$ivile(e o& con, 008 )ientin( o!inion-

/5

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn110http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn111http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn111http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn112http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn110http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn111http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn112


16/67


U./. v. Ni=on@//, 008 )ientin( o!inion-

/?

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn113http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn114http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn115http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn116http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn117http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn118http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn118http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn119http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn120http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn121http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn122http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn123http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn124http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn124http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn125http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn113http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn114http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn115http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn116http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn117http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn118http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn119http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn120http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn121http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn122http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn123http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn124http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn125


17/67


18/67


o#servation that a search of the *onstitution and the histor" of its creation reveal a generaldisfavor of government privileges@/


19/67


The interest in preserving conDdentialit" is eight" indeed and entitled to greatrespect+ Goever, we cannot concl*)e that a)vie$ will ?e %ove) tote%!e$ the can)o$ of their remar's #" the in&$e*ent occaion o& )iclo*$e #ecause of the !oi?ilit" that *ch conve$ation will ?e calle)&o$ in the conte=t o& a c$i%inal !$oec*tion+@/>2A (emphasis supplied)

/econ), it coni)e$e) the ill eect o& non)iclo*$e o& the withhel) in&o$%ation onthe !e$&o$%ance o& &*nction o& the *)icia$". he Ni=on #o*$t found that an a#solute,unqualiDed privilege ould i%!ai$ the *)icia$" !e$&o$%ance o& it contit*tional )*t"

to )o *tice in c$i%inal !$oec*tion. Fn #alancing the competing interests of the executiveand the 9udiciar" using the function impairment test, it held:

The impediment that an a#solute, unqualiDed privilege ould place in the a" of the !$i%a$" contit*tional )*t" o& the *)icial $anch to )o *tice incriminal prosecutions ould plainl" conQict ith the &*nction o& the co*$t*n)e$ $t. III+xxx xxx xxx

To read the $t. II !owe$ o& the P$ei)ent as providing an a#solute privilegeas against a su#poena essential to en&o$ce%ent o& c$i%inal tat*te on nomore than a generali3ed claim of the pu#lic interest in conDdentialit" of nonmilitar" and nondiplomatic discussions ould *!et the contit*tional

?alance o& a wo$Aa?le (ove$n%ent an) ($avel" i%!ai$ the $ole o& theco*$t *n)e$ $t. III+ xxx xxx xxx !ince e conclude that the legitimate needs of the 9udicial process ma" outeighPresidential privilege, it is necessar" to $eolve thoe co%!etin( inte$et ina %anne$ that !$ee$ve the eential &*nction o& each ?$anch+@/>5A (emphasis supplied) xxx xxx xxx


/=

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn142http://international.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOARTIIIS1&FindType=Lhttp://international.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOARTIIIS1&FindType=Lhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn143http://international.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1935123854&ReferencePosition=633http://international.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1935123854&ReferencePosition=633http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn144http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn145http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn145http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn145http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn142http://international.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOARTIIIS1&FindType=Lhttp://international.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOARTIIIS1&FindType=Lhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn143http://international.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1935123854&ReferencePosition=633http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn144http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn145


20/67


the alloance of the privilege to ithhold evidence that is )e%ont$a?l"$elevant in a c$i%inal t$ial wo*l) c*t )ee!l" into the (*a$antee o& )*e!$oce o& law an) ($avel" i%!ai$ the ?aic &*nction o& theco*$t. . P$ei)ent acAnowle)(e) nee) &o$ conA of his conversations+ Ge did not claim the need to protect %ilita$",)i!lo%atic, o$ enitive national ec*$it" ec$et.@/>8A Geld the *ourt, viz :

Ge (President %ixon) )oe not !lace hi clai% o& !$ivile(e on the ($o*n)that the" a$e %ilita$" o$ )i!lo%atic ec$et+ .s to these areas of .rt+ FF dutiesthe courts have traditionall" shon the utmost deference to Presidentialresponsi#ilities Fn Unite) /tate v. Re"nol) , 5 +!+ /, < !+*t+ 528, = +6d+ 2 (/=5=A

(emphasis supplied) Fn #alancing the competing interests of the executive and 9udicial #ranches of government,the Ni=on #o*$t emphasi3ed that hile government privileges are necea$", the" i%!e)ethe ea$ch &o$ t$*th an) %*t not the$e&o$e ?e li(htl" c$eate) o$ e=!anivel"cont$*e). It hel), viz:

The privileges referred to #" the *ourt are designed to protect eight" andlegitimate competing interests+ Thus, the Hifth .mendment to the *onstitutionprovides that no man shall #e compelled in an" criminal case to #e a itnessagainst himself+ .nd, generall", an attorne" or a priest ma" not #e required todisclose hat has #een revealed in professional conDdence+ These and otherinterests are recogni3ed in la #" privileges against forced disclosure, esta#lished

in the *onstitution, #" statute, or at common la+ hatever their origins, theseexceptions to the demand for ever" manRs evidence are not li(htl" c$eate) no$e=!anivel" cont$*e), &o$ the" a$e in )e$o(ation o& the ea$ch &o$ t$*th +@/50A


20

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn146http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn147http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn148http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn148http://international.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1953120299http://international.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1953120299http://international.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1953120299http://international.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1953120299http://international.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1953120299http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn149http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn150http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn146http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn147http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn148http://international.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1953120299http://international.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1953120299http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn149http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn150


21/67


6. In #a%e$a ete$%ination o& In&o$%ation to ?e icloe)

.fter determining that the !pecial Prosecutor had made a su$cient shoing of ademonstra#le speciDc need to ove$co%e the *ali8J a governmental privilege against pu#lic disclosure of tate ec$etcovering %ilita$",)i!lo%atic an) othe$ national ec*$it" %atte$+ Fn U./. v. Re"nol),1>;J the +!+ !upreme*ourt laid don the !$oce)*$e for invo'ing and assessing the validit" of the invocation of themilitar" secrets privilege, a !$ivile(e ?ae) on the nat*$e an) content o& thein&o$%ation, hich can #e analogi3ed to the diplomatic secrets privilege, also a content@?ae) privilege+ Fn Re"nol), it as held that there must #e a &o$%al clai% of privilege

lodged #" the head of the department that has control over the matter after actual personalconsideration #" that o$cer+ The court must thereafter )ete$%ine whethe$ theci$c*%tance a$e a!!$o!$iate &o$ the clai% o& !$ivile(e, witho*t &o$cin( a )iclo*$eo& the ve$" thin( the !$ivile(e i )ei(ne) to !$otect +@/?0A Ft as stressed that (9)udicialcontrol over the evidence in a case cannot #e a#dicated to the caprice of executive o$cers @/?/A Ft


2/

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn151http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn152http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn152http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn153http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn154http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn155http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn156http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn157http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn158http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn159http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn160http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn161http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn161http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn151http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn152http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn153http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn154http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn155http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn156http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn157http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn158http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn159http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn160http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn161


22/67


is possi#le for these o$cers to satisf" the court, &$o% all the ci$c*%tance o& the cae, thatthere is a $eaona?le )an(e$ that compulsion of the evidence ill e=!oe %ilita$" %atte$which, in the inte$et o& national ec*$it", ho*l) not ?e )iv*l(e). hen this is thecase, the occaion &o$ the !$ivile(e i a!!$o!$iate , and the court should not 9eopardi3e thesecurit" hich the privilege is meant to protect #" insisting upon an examination of theevidence, even #" the 9udge alone, in cham#ers+@/?2A Ft as further held that (i)n each case, thehowin( o& neceit" which i %a)e will )ete$%ine how &a$ the co*$t ho*l) !$o?e insatisf"ing itself that the occasion for invo'ing the privilege is appropriate+@/?, 2008, petitioner %eri similarl" failed to explainho diplomatic secrets ill #e compromised if the three disputed questions are ansered #"him+@/?8A *onsidering this paucit" of explanation, the *ourt cannot )ete$%ine whethe$ the$e i$eaona?le )an(e$ that petitioners ansers to the three disputed questions ould $eveal!$ivile(e) )i!lo%atic ec$et. he #o*$t cannot en(a(e in (*ewo$A in $eolvin( thii%!o$tant i*e.

Petitioner %eri also invo'es executive privilege on the &*$the$ ($o*n) that his conversationith the President dealt ith national ec*$it" %atte$. n %ovem#er 2=, 200, petitionerrote to !enator .lan Peter !+ *a"etano as *hairperson of the *ommittee on .ccounta#ilit" of Pu#lic $cers and Fnvestigations in repl" to the respondent !enate *ommittees !ho *auserder requiring petitioner to explain h" he should not #e cited for contempt for failing toattend the respondent !enate *ommittees %ovem#er 20, 200 hearing+ Petitioner attached tohis letter the letter of his la"er, .tt"+ .ntonio &autista, also dated %ovem#er 2=, 200+ Fn thisletter, .tt"+ &autista a))e) othe$ $eaon to *ti&" petitioners failure to attend the !enatehearings+ Ge stated that petitioners conversations ith the President dealt ith delicate andsensitive national ec*$it" and diplomatic matters $elatin( to the i%!act o& the ?$i?e$"

can)al involvin( hi(h (ove$n%ent oBcial and the possi#le loss of conDdence of foreigninvestors and lenders in the Philippines+@/?=A Fn his Petition, %eri did not use the term nationalsecurit", #ut the term militar" aJairs, viz :

Petitioners discussions ith the President ere candid discussions meant toexplore options in ma'ing polic" decisions (see .lmonte v+ 7asque3, 2>> !*C.28? @/==5A)+ These discussions delt on the impact of the #ri#er" scandalinvolving high Bovernment o$cials on the countr"s )i!lo%atic $elation an)econo%ic an) %ilita$" aai$, and the possi#le loss of conDdence of foreigninvestors and lenders in the Philippines+@/0A

Fn /enate v. E$%ita, we $*le) that onl" the P$ei)ent o$ the E=ec*tive /ec$eta$", ?"o$)e$ o& the P$ei)ent, can invoAe e=ec*tive !$ivile(e. Thus, !etitione$, hi%el& o$th$o*(h hi co*nel, cannot e=!an) the ($o*n) invo'ed #" the President through

6xecutive !ecretar" 6rmita in his %ovem#er /5, 200 letter to !enator .lan Peter !+*a"etano+ Fn his letter, E=ec*tive /ec$eta$" E$%ita invoAe) onl" the P$ei)entialco%%*nication !$ivile(e and, as earlier explained, suggested a claim of )i!lo%aticec$et !$ivile(e+ &ut even assuming arguendo that petitioner %eri can properl" invo'e theprivilege covering national securit" and militar" aJairs, still, the records ill sho that he failed


22

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn162http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn163http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn164http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn165http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn166http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn167http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn168http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn169http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn170http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn162http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn163http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn164http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn165http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn166http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn167http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn168http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn169http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn170


23/67


to provide the *ourt 'noledge of the ci$c*%tance ith hich the *ourt can )ete$%inewhethe$ the$e i $eaona?le )an(e$that his ansers to the three disputed questionsould indeed )iv*l(e ec$et that ould compromise our national securit"+Fn the ral .rgument on March >, 2008, petitioners counsel argued the #asis for invo'ingexecutive privilege covering diplomatic, militar" and national securit" secrets, #ut those arearguments of petitioners counsel and can hardl" stand for the formal claim of privilege lodged#" the head of the department hich has control over the matter after actual personalconsideration #" that o$cer that Re"nol) requires+@//A

%eedless to state, the diplomatic, militar" or national securit" privilege claimed #" the petitionerhas no leg to stand on+

. !!lica?ilit" o& the P$ei)ential #o%%*nication P$ivile(e

The P$ei)ential co%%*nication !$ivile(e attache to the oBce o& the P$ei)entK itis *e) after careful consideration in order to uphold pu#lic interest in the conDdentialit"and eectivene o& P$ei)ential )eciion@%aAin( to ?ene


24/67


. hard loo' at /enate v. E$%ita ought to "ield the conclusion that it #estoed a qualiDedpresumption in favor of the Presidential communications privilege+ .s shon in the previousdiscussion, U./. v. Ni=on, as ell as the other related %ixon cases /i$ica178J and /enate/elect #o%%ittee on P$ei)ential #a%!ai(n ctivitie, et al. v. Ni=on17;J in the 1+*+*ourt of .ppeals, as ell as su#sequent cases,@/80A all $eco(nie that there is a presumptiveprivilege in favor of Presidential communications+ The l%onte cae181J quoted U./. v.Ni=on and recogni3ed a presumption in favor of conDdentialit" of Presidential communications+

The statement in /enate v. E$%ita that the extraordinar" character of the exemptionsindicates that the presumption inclines heavil" against executive secrec" and in favor of

disclosure@/82A

must therefore #e read to mean that there is a general disfavor of governmentprivileges as held in In Re /*?!oena &o$ Ni=on, especiall" considering the #ias of the /=8Philippine *onstitution toards full pu#lic disclosure and transparenc" in government+ FnDne, /enate v. E$%ita recogni3ed the Presidential communications privilege in U./. v.Ni=on and the qualiDed presumptive status that the +!+ Gigh *ourt gave that privilege+ h*,$e!on)ent /enate #o%%ittee a$(*%ent that the ?*$)en i on !etitione$ toove$co%e a !$e*%!tion a(aint e=ec*tive !$ivile(e cannot ?e *taine).

. ?. Ne=t, the /t$en(th o& the 9*ali


25/67


the President ma" contract or guarantee domestic or foreign loans in #ehalf of theCepu#lic of the Philippines su#9ect to such limitations as ma" #e provided #" la+

Fn vie of the fact that our foreign de#t has amounted to ;2? #illion it ma" reachup to ;


26/67


nce an inquir" is admitted or esta#lished to #e ithin the 9urisdiction of alegislative #od" to ma'e, e thin' the inveti(atin( co%%ittee ha the!owe$ to $e*i$e a witne to anwe$ an" *etion !e$tinent to thatin*i$", su#9ect of course to his constitutional right against self-incrimination+ Theinquir", to #e ithin the 9urisdiction of the legislative #od" to ma'e, must #ematerial or necessar" to the exercise of a poer in it vested #" the *onstitution,such as to legislate, or to expel a Mem#erK and eve$" *etion which theinveti(ato$ i e%!owe$e) to coe$ce a witne to anwe$ %*t ?e%ate$ial o$ !e$tinent to the *?ect %atte$ o& the in*i$" o$

inveti(ation. !o a witne %a" not ?e coe$ce) to anwe$ a *etion thato?vio*l" ha no $elation to the *?ect o& the in*i$". &ut from this it doesnot follo that ever" question that ma" #e propounded to a itness #e material toan" proposed or possi#le legislation+ Fn other ords, the %ate$ialit" o& the*etion %*t ?e )ete$%ine) ?" it )i$ect $elation to the *?ect o& thein*i$" an) not ?" it in)i$ect $elation to an" !$o!oe) o$ !oi?lele(ilation. he $eaon i, that the neceit" o$ lacA o& neceit" &o$le(ilative action an) the &o$% an) cha$acte$ o& the action itel& a$e)ete$%ine) ?" the *% total o& the in&o$%ation to ?e (athe$e) a a$e*lt o& the inveti(ation, an) not ?" a &$action o& *ch in&o$%ationelicite) &$o% a in(le *etion.187J (emphasis supplied)

.s afore-discussed, to esta#lish a demonstra#le speciDc need, there must #e a shoing

that evi)ence i not availa?le with )*e )ili(ence elewhe$e or that theevi)ence i!a$tic*la$l" an) a!!a$entl" *e&*l. This requirement of lacA o& eective *?tit*te ismeant to decrease the frequenc" of incursions into the conDdentialit" of Presidentialcommunications, to ena#le the President and the Presidential advisers to communicate in anatmosphere of necessar" conDdence hile engaged in decision-ma'ing+ Ft ill also help thePresident to focus on an energetic performance of his or her constitutional duties+@/88A

et us proceed to appl" these tan)a$) to the case at #ar: !e$tinence o& the *etion!$o!o*n)e) an) lacA o& eective *?tit*te &o$ the in&o$%ation o*(ht.

he


27/67


MC+ %6CF+ !he told me, 1ont accept it+!6%+ .*!%+ .nd then, thats itLMC+ %6CF+ eah, #ecause e had other things to discuss during that time+!6%+ .*!%+ .nd then after the President told "ou, 1o not accept it, hat didshe doL Go did "ou report it to the PresidentL Fn the same context it as oJeredto "ouLMC+ %6CF+ F remem#er it as over the phone, our Gonor+@/=2A

xxx xxx xxx!6%+ P.%BFF%.%+ ou mentioned earlier that "ou mentioned this to the

President+ 1id the President after that discussion over the phone, as this everraised again, the issue of the 200 'a ritoLMC+ %6CF+ e did not discuss it again, our Gonor+/EN. PNGILINN. Kith the P$ei)ent *t the i*e, o& co*$e, the NN)eal, wa $aie) a(ain &te$ that, ?etween "o* an) theP$ei)ent.Pinalow *! +&ollowe) *!- ?a ni"aMR. NERI. Ma" I clai% the e=ec*tive !$ivile(e, 2o*$ 'ono$, ?eca*e IthinA thi al$ea)" involve conve$ation ?etween %e an) the P$ei)ent, 2o*$ 'ono$, ?eca*e thi i al$ea)" con, our Gonor, the scope is, num#er one, state secretsKnum#er to, informants privilegeK num#er three, intra-governmental documentsreQecting advisor" opinions, recommendations and deli#erations+ .nd

under /ection +- o& EO 464, it incl*)e all con


28/67


2+ P+!+ Ces+ %o+ /2=: Cesolution 1irecting the *ommittee on %ational 1efense and

!ecurit" to *onduct an Fnquir" in .id of egislation into the %ational !ecurit"Fmplications of .arding the %ational &road#and %etor' *ontract to the*hinese Hirm 4hong ing Telecommunications 6quipment *ompan" imited(4T6 *orporation) ith the 6nd in 7ie of Providing Cemedial egislation thatill further Protect our %ational !overeignt" !ecurit" and Territorial Fntegrit"+@/=8A


29/67


30/67


!$o!oin( what #on($e ho*l) incl*)e in the !$o!oe) ?ill to incl*)ee=ec*tive a($ee%ent &o$ /enate conc*$$ence, hich agreements can ?e*e) ?" the E=ec*tive to ci$c*%vent the $e*i$e%ent o& !*?lic ?i))in( inthe existing Bovernment Procurement Ceform .ct (C+.+ =/8>)+ (emphasissupplied)@2/8A

Fn the ral .rgument held on March >, 2008, counsel for respondent !enate *ommittees#olstered the claim that nondisclosure ill seriousl" impair the functions of the respondent!enate *ommittees, viz :

#'IE U/I#E PUNOMr+ *ounsel, ma" F go #ac' to the case of +!+ vs+ %ixon hich used the

functional impairment approach+

2. GIN es, our Gonor+

#'IE U/I#E PUNOFs it not true that using this approach, there is the presumption in favor of

the Presidents generali3ed interest in the conDdentialit" of his or hercommunication+ F underscore the ords generali3ed interest+

2. GIN es, our Gonor+

#'IE U/I#E PUNO%o, "ou see' this approach, let me as' "ou the same question that F

as'ed to the other counsel, .tt"+ &autista+ Ceading the letter of !ecretar" 6rmita itould seem that the $ce of the President is invo'ing the doctrine of 6xecutivePrivilege onl" on not (sic) three questions+

2. GIN

es, our Gonor+

#'IE U/I#E PUNO!o, can "ou tell the *ourt ho critical are these questions to the

lama'ing function of the !enate+ Hor instance, *etion N*%?e$ 1, whethe$the P$ei)ent &ollowe) *! the NN !$oect + .ccording to the other counsel,this question has alread" #een as'ed, is that correctL 2. GIN

ell, the question has #een as'ed #ut it as not ansered, our Gonor+ #'IE U/I#E PUNO

es+ &ut m" question is ho critical is this to the lama'ing function of the!enateL

2. GINF #elieve it is critical, our Gonor+

#'IE U/I#E PUNOh"L

2. GINHor instance, with $e!ect to the !$o!oe) ill o& /enato$ Mi$ia%

/antia(o, he wo*l) liAe to en)o$e a ill to incl*)e E=ec*tive($ee%ent to ?e *?ect to $ati


31/67


ell, it can proceed from that assumption, our Gonor, except that the$ewo*l) ?e no &act*al ?ai &o$ the /enate to a" that in)ee) E=ec*tive($ee%ent ha) ?een *e) a a )evice to ci$c*%ventin( theP$oc*$e%ent Law+

#'IE U/I#E PUNO

&ut the question is 9ust folloing it up+ 2. GIN

F #elieve that ma" #e the initial question, our Gonor, #ecause if e loo' atthis pro#lem in its factual setting as counsel for petitioner has o#served, there areintimations of a #ri#er" scandal involving high government o$cials+

#'IE U/I#E PUNO

.gain, a#out the econ) *etion, ere "ou dictated to !$io$itie thiDE, is that critical to the lama'ing function of the !enateL ill it result to thefailure of the !enate to co##le a &ill ithout this questionL

2. GIN

F thin' it is critical to la" the &act*al &o*n)ation &o$ a !$o!oe)a%en)%ent to the P$oc*$e%ent Law, our Gonor, #ecause the petitioner hadalread" testiDed that he as oJered a P200 Million #ri#e, so if he as oJered

a P200 Million #ri#e it is possi#le that other government o$cials ho hadsomething to do ith the approval of that contract ould #e oJered the sameamount of #ri#es+ #'IE U/I#E PUNO

.gain, that is !ec*lative+

2. GINhat i wh" the" want to contin*e with the inveti(ation, our

Gonor+

#'IE U/I#E PUNOGo a#out the thi$) *etion, hether the President said to (o ahea)

an) a!!$ove the !$oect a&te$ ?ein( tol) a?o*t the alle(e) ?$i?e. Gocritical is that to the lama'ing function of the !enateL .nd the question is ma"the" craft a &ill, a remedial la, ithout forcing petitioner %eri to anser thisquestionL

2. GIN

ell, the" can craft it, our Gonor, #ased on mere speculation+ .nd o*n)le(ilation $e*i$e that a !$o!oe) ill ho*l) have o%e ?ai in &act +

#'IE U/I#E PUNOFt seems to me that "ou sa" that this is critical+

2. GIN es, our Gonor+ (emphasis supplied)@2/=A

The a#ove exchange shos ho petitioners refusal to anser the three questions ill seriousl"impair the !enates function of c$a&tin( !eci, 008 )ientin( o!inion-


32/67


claims of their poers and privileges+ %o, using that functional test, please tellthe *ourt ho the $ce of the President ill #e seriousl" hampered in theperformance of its poers and duties, if petitioner %eri ould #e alloed toappear in the !enate and anser the three questions that he does not ant toanserL

2. UI/:

our Gonor, the eJect, the chilling eJect on the President, she ill #escared to tal' to her advisers an" longer, #ecause for fear that an"thing that the

conversation that she has ith them ill #e opened to examination and scrutin"#" third parties, and that includes *ongress+ .nd (interrupted)

#'IE U/I#E PUNO:

et us #e more speciDc+ *hilling eJect, that is a conclusion+ The


33/67


#'IE U/I#E PUNO:h"L h"L

2. UI/:

&ecause there are lists of pro9ects, hich have to #e--hich requireDnancing from a#road+ .nd if the President is 'non or its made pu#lic that shepreferred this one pro9ect to the other, then she o!en he$el& tocon)e%nation ?" thoe who we$e &avo$in( the othe$ !$oect which we$enot !$io$itie).

#'IE U/I#E PUNO:

I thi not $eall" an i%!o$tant !$oect, one that is supposed to #eneDtthe Hilipino peopleL !o if the President, sa"s, "ou !$io$itie thi !$oect,wh"ho*l) the heaven &all on the OBce o& the P$ei)entL

2. UI/:

ell, there are also other pro9ects hich have, hich are supported #" a lotof people+ i'e the *"#er 6d pro9ect, the .ngat ater 1am pro9ect+ Ff she is 'nonthat she gave lo priorit" to these other pro9ects, she o!en he$el& to %e)iaan) !*?lic c$itici%, not onl" %e)ia ?*t alo in $allie, our Gonor+ #'IE U/I#E PUNO:

!o, again, that i *t "o*$ !e$onal i%!$eionL 2. UI/:

ell, I cannot avoi) it, our Gonor+ #'IE U/I#E PUNO:Go a#out the thi$) *etion, hether the President said to go ahead andapprove the pro9ect after #eing told the alleged #ri#e+ .gain, ho ill that aJectthe functions of the President using that #alancing test of functionsL 2. UI/:ell, i& the anwe$ i in the aB$%ative, then it will ?e hown, n*%?e$one, that he ha *n)*e inte$et in this thing, #ecause she sits alread" on theF*T and the &oard+ #'IE U/I#E PUNO:.gain, hen "ou sa" *n)*e inte$et, that i "o*$ !e$onal o!inion. 2. UI/:

2e, 2o*$ 'ono$+ #'IE U/I#E PUNO:

Ft ma" #e an interest, #ut it %a" not ?e *n)*e. 2. UI/:

&ut in the climate, present climate of pu#lic opinion as hipped up #" people thatill #e the i%!$eion, our Gonor+ !he does not operate in a vacuum+ !he hasto ta'e into account hat is going on+ #'IE U/I#E PUNO: That is "our !e$onal o!inion againL 2. UI/: 2e, our Gonor+ (emphasis supplied)@220A

Hrom the a#ove exchange, it is clear that petitioners invocation of the Presidentialcommunications privilege is #ased on a (ene$al clai% of a chilling eJect on the Presidentsperformance of her functions if the three questions are ansered+ The general claim is

unsu#stantiated #" speciDc proofs that the performance of the functions of the President ill #eadversel" aJected in a signiDcant degree+ Fndeed, petitioners counsel can onl" manage tosu#mit his own i%!$eion an) !e$onal o!inion on the *?ect.



34/67


!umming it up, on one end of the #alancing scale is the Presidents (ene$alie) claim of conDdentialit" of her communications, and petitioners failure to 9ustif" a claim that hisconversations ith the President involve diplomatic, militar" and national securit" secrets+ eaccord Presidential communications a presumptive privilege #ut the strength of this !$ivile(e iweaAene) ?" the &act that the *?ect o& the co%%*nication involve a cont$act witha &o$ei(n loan. he !owe$ to cont$act &o$ei(n loan is a poer not exclusivel" vested inthe President, #ut is shared ith the Monetar" &oard (*entral &an')+ e also considerthe chillin( eect hich ma" result from the disclosure of the information sought frompetitioner %eri #ut the chilling eJect is )i%inihe) #" the nat*$e o& the in&o$%ation o*(ht,

which i na$$ow, li%ite) a it i to the th$ee aaile) *etion. e ta'e 9udicial noticealso of the fact that in a !enate inquir", there are a&e(*a$) against an indiscriminateconduct of investigation+

n the other end of the #alancing scale is the $e!on)ent /enate #o%%ittee!eci, 008 )ientin( o!inion-

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn221http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn222http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn223http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn224http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn225http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn226http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn227http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn221http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn222http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn223http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn224http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn225http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn226http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_puno.htm#_ftn227


35/67


Fn /i$ica, the .ppellate *ourt held that ()e emphasi3e that the grand 9ur"s howin( o& nee)in no ene $elie) on an" evi)ence that the P$ei)ent wa involve) in, o$ even awa$eo&, an" alle(e) c$i%inal activit"+ e freel" assume, for purposes of this opinion, that thePresident as engaged in the performance of his constitutional dut"+ %onetheless, e hold thatthe 1istrict *ourt ma" order disclosure of all portions of the tapes $elevant to %atte$ withinthe !$o!e$ co!e o& the ($an) *$" inveti(ation , unless the *ourt 9udges that the pu#licinterest served #" nondisclosure of particular statements or information outeighs the nee) &o$that in&o$%ation )e%ont$ate) ?" the ($an) *$"+ (emphasis supplied)@228A

Fn /enate /elect #o%%ittee, the court reiterated its ruling in /i$ica, viz : under Ni=on v./i$ica, the howin( $e*i$e) to ove$co%e the !$e*%!tion &avo$in( con


36/67


confrontation #eteen the to #ranches should #e avoided henever possi#le+@2


37/67

Political Law Review: Legislative Inquiry @2>>A and the P$ivile(e /!eecho& /enato$ Mi$ia% e&eno$ /antia(o on international agreements in constitutional la+@2>5A The *ourt also ta'es note of the fact that there are three pending #ills in relation to thesu#9ect inquir": /enate ill No. 17;3,@2>?A /enate ill No. 17;4@2>A and /enate ill No.1317. @2>8A Ft is not di$cult to conclude that the su#9ect inquir" is ithin the poer of the !enateto conduct and that the respondent !enate *ommittees have #een given the authorit" to soconduct, the inquir"+

e no turn to the pertinence of the questions propounded, hich the itness refused to

anser+ The su#poena ad testifcandum issued to petitioner states that he is required to appear#efore the *ommittee on .ccounta#ilit" of Pu#lic $cers and Fnvestigations (&lue Ci##on) of the!enate testif" under oath on hat "ou 'no relative to the su#9ect matter under inquir" #" thesaid *ommittee+ The su#9ect matter of the inquir" as indicated in the heading of the su#poena,hich stated the resolutions and privilege speeches that initiated the investigation+ Cespondent!enate *ommittees have "et to propound to petitioner %eri their questions on this su#9ectmatterK hence, he cannot conclude #eforehand that these questions ould not #e pertinent andsimpl" refuse to attend the hearing of %ovem#er 20, 200+

Ft is orth noting that the letter of 6xecutive !ecretar" 6rmita, signed #" rder of thePresident, merel" $e*ete) that petitioners testimon" on %ovem#er 20, 200 on the %&%*ontract #e dispensed ith, as he had exhaustivel" testiDed on the su#9ect matter of the inquir"+6xecutive privilege as invo'ed onl" ith respect to the three questions %eri refused to anser

in his testimon" #efore respondent !enate *ommittees on !eptem#er 2?, 200+ &ut there is no#asis for either petitioner or the 6xecutive !ecretar" to assume that petitioners furthertestimon" ill #e limited onl" on the three disputed questions+ %eedless to state, $e!on)ent/enate #o%%ittee have (oo) $eaon in citin( Ne$i &o$ conte%!t &o$ &ailin( toa!!ea$ in the Nove%?e$ 0, 007 hea$in(+

Ne=t, e come to the !$oce)*$al a!ect of the poer of the respondent !enate *ommitteesto order petitioners arrest+ The question is hether the respondents folloed their on rules inordering petitioners arrest+

The rder of arrest issued #" respondent !enate *ommittees on Eanuar" , 007 an)*e)a", Nove%?e$ 0, 007.%1 for &ail*$e to e=!lain ati&acto$il" h" he should not#e cited for contempt (Ne$i lette$ o& ; Nove%?e$ 007, herein attached)+ The rderreads, viz :

C16C

Hor failure to appear and testif" in the *ommittees hearing on Tuesda",!eptem#er /8, 200K Thursda", !eptem#er 20, 200K Thursda", cto#er 25, 200and Tuesda", %ovem#er 20, 200, despite personal notice and a !u#poena .d TestiDcandum sent to and received #" him, hich there#" dela"s, impedes ando#structs, as it has in fact dela"ed, impeded and o#structed the inquir" into thesu#9ect reported irregularities, .%1 for failure to explain satisfactoril" h" he

should not #e cited for contempt (%eri letter of 2= %ovem#er 200, hereinattached) ROMULO L. NERI is here#" cited in contempt of this (sic) *ommitteesand ordered arrested and detained in the $ce of the !enate !ergeant-.t-.rmsuntil such time that he ill appear and give his testimon"+ The !ergeant-.t-.rms is here#" directed to carr" out and implement this rderand ma'e a return hereof ithin tent" four (2>) hours from its enforcement+ ! C16C61+ Fssued this =A

The facts should not #e o#fuscated+ The rder of arrest refers to several dates of hearing that

petitioner failed to attend, for hich he as ordered arrested, namel":*e)a", /e!te%?e$18, 007C h*$)a", /e!te%?e$ 0, 007C h*$)a", Octo?e$ >, 007C an) *e)a",Nove%?e$ 0, 007. The failure to explain satisfactoril" (%eri letter of 2= %ovem#er200), hoever, refers onl" to the Nove%?e$ 0, 007 hearing, as it as in reference to thisparticular date of hearing that respondent !enate *ommittees required petitioner to sho cause



38/67


h" he should not #e cited for contempt+ This is clear from respondent !enate *ommitteesletter to petitioner dated%ovem#er 22, 200+ @250A The records are #ereft of an" letter or orderissued to petitioner #" respondent !enate *ommittees for him to sho cause h" he should not#e cited for contempt for failing to attend the hearings on *e)a", /e!te%?e$ 18, 007Ch*$)a", /e!te%?e$ 0, 007C an) h*$)a", Octo?e$ >, 007.

e therefore examine the procedural validit" of the issuance of the rder of arrest of petitioner for hi &ail*$e to atten) the Nove%?e$ 0, 007 hea$in( a&te$ the $e!on)ent/enate #o%%ittee


39/67


Cevilla, Er+, CamonGonasan FF, Bregorio Bringo - signed6scudero, Hrancis - signedapid, Manuel1efensor !antiago, Miriam.rro"o, Eo'er.quino FFF, &enigno - signedacson, PanDlo - signedegarda, oren - signed

Madrigal, M+.+ - signedPimentel, Er+ .quilino - signed Trillanes F7, .ntonio 6x-$cio Mem#ers: 69ercito 6strada, Einggo" - signedPangilinan, Hrancis - signed3. #o%%ittee on $a)e an) #o%%e$ce +; %e%?e$ e=cl*)in( 3 ex-

ofcio %e%?e$-*hairperson: Coxas, M.C - signed7ice-*hairperson: Mem#ers: *a"etano, Pia - signedapid, Manuel

Cevilla, Er+, Camon6scudero, Hrancis - signed6nrile, Euan PonceBordon, Cichard&ia3on, Codolfo - signedMadrigal, M+.+- signed6x-$cio Mem#ers: 69ercito 6strada, Einggo" -signedPangilinan, Hrancis - signedPimentel, Er+, .quilino S signed

7is-a-vis the composition of respondent !enate *ommittees, the Eanuar"


40/67


RE2NO /. PUNO*hief Eustice

I//ENING OPINION#RPIO MORLE/, J.: 6xecutive rder %o+ >?>@/A (6++ >?>) practicall" #ecame a dead letter upon the promulgationof Senate v. Ermita,@2A and as formall" interred #" Memorandum *ircular %o+ /5/+ @, 008 )ientin( o!inion-

>0

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn6


41/67


contempt+ The !enate *ommittees thereafter issued an rder dated Eanuar" A Ft #ears noting that petitioner raised this claim onl" in

its Eanuar" , 008 )ientin( o!inion-

>/

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn15


42/67


complete to deal ith an" aJront committed against or an" deDance of legislative authorit" ordignit", in the exercise of its poer to o#tain information on hich to #ase intended legislation+

Fn another vein, petitioner claims that the Cules of Procedure Boverning Fnquiries in .id of

egislation has not #een pu#lished+ !u$ce it to state that the same argument as raised #" theP*BB *ommissioners ho ere petitioners in Sabio v. $ordon,@/?A and the *ourt considered thesame as inconsequential in light of the more signiDcant issue calling for resolution therein,namel", hether !ection >(#) of 6++ %o+ / as repealed #" the /=8 *onstitution+ Theargument deserves the same scant consideration in the present case+

hile it is clear that petitioner ma" validl" #e cited in contempt ithout an" grave a#use

of discretion on respondents part and this petition consequentl" dismissed on that ground the*ourt cannot evade the question of hether the claim of privilege su#9ect of this case isvalid+ he i*e in thi cae )oe not have to )o i%!l" with the a?ence o$ !$eenceo& !etitione$ in $e!on)ent hea$in(, ?*t with the co!e o& the *etion that %a"?e vali)l" aAe) o& hi%. The President does not ant petitioner to anser the three questions on the ground of executiveprivilege+ Cespecting the speciDc #asis for the privilege, !ec+ 6rmita states that the samequestions fall under conversations and correspondence #eteen the President and pu#lico$cials hich are considered executive privilege+

!ec+ 6rmita goes on to state that the context in hich the privilege is #eing invo'ed is

that the information sought to #e disclosed might impair our diplomatic as ell as economicrelations ith the Peoples Cepu#lic of *hina+ 6videntl", this statement as occasioned #" theruling in Senate v. Ermita that a claim of privilege ma" #e valid or not depending on the groundinvo'ed to 9ustif" it and the context in hich it is made+

Khat wa %eant ?" conte=t in Senate v. Ermita ha %o$e to )o with the )e($ee o& nee) hown ?" the !e$on o$ a(enc" aAin( &o$ in&o$%ation, than with a))itional$eaon which the E=ec*tive %a" !$oe$ &o$ Aee!in( the a%e in&o$%ationcon, 008 )ientin( o!inion-

>2

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn18


43/67


MR. NERI &ut e had a nice golf game+ The *hairman as ver" charming,"ou 'no, and #ut the$e wa o%ethin( that he ai) that *$!$ie) %e an)he ai) that, /ec, %a" 00 Aa )ito. F #elieve e ere in a golf cart+ Ge asdriving, F as seated #eside him so med"o na#igla a'o #ut since he as our host,F chose to ignore it+

TG6 !6%.T6 PC6!F16%T .nong sina#i mo noong sa#ihin ni"ang 200L

MR. NERI I ai), an) I (*e I wa too hocAe) to a" an"thin(,

?*t I in&o$%e) %" NE ta that !e$ha! the" ho*l) ?e ca$e&*l inaein( thi !$oect via?ilit" an) %a"?e ?e ca$e&*l with the cotin(?eca*e I tol) the% what ha!!ene), I %ean, what wa ai) to%e. (6mphasis supplied) pon further questioning, petitioner shortl" thereafter testiDed that he reported to the

President hat he perceived as *hairman .#alos #ri#e oJer, to it:

!6%+ .*!%+ ou ere shoc'ed, "ou said+ MC+ %6CF+ eah, F guess, F guess+ !6%+ .*!%+ &a'it 'a"o na-shoc'L

MC+ %6CF+ ell, F @amA not used to #eing oJered+ !6%+ .*!%+ &ri#edL MC+ %6CF+ eah+ !econd is, med"o mala'i+ /EN. L#/ON. In othe$ wo$), at that !oint it wa clea$ to "o* that

"o* we$e ?ein( oe$e) ?$i?e %one" in the a%o*nt o& 00 %illion, Aai%alaAi, a?i ni"o

MR. NERI. I ai) no a%o*nt wa !*t, ?*t I (*e (iven the

%a(nit*)e o& the !$oect, i(*$o na%an hin)i P00 o$ P00,00, +sic- o /EN. L#/ON. ahil ca?inet oBcial Aa"o, eh. MR. NERI. I (*e. *t I "o* Anow /EN. L#/ON. i) "o* $e!o$t thi atte%!te) ?$i?e oe$ to the

P$ei)ent MR. NERI. I %entione) it to the P$ei)ent, 2o*$ 'ono$. /EN. L#/ON. Khat )i) he tell "o*

MR. NERI. /he tol) %e, ont acce!t it. !6%+ .*!%+ .nd then, thats itL MC+ %6CF+ eah, #ecause e had other things to discuss during that time+ !6%+ .*!%+ .nd then after the President told "ou, 1o not accept it, hat

did she doL Go did "ou report it to the PresidentL Fn the same context that it asoJered to "ouL

MC+ %6CF+ F remem#er it as over the phone, our Gonor+ !6%+ .*!%+ Gindi nga+ Papaano nin"o ni-report, Fnoperan (oJer) a'o ng

#ri#e na P200 million ni *hairman .#alos or hatL Go did "ou report it to herL MC+ %6CF+ ell, as F said, *hairman .#alos oJered me 200 million for this+ !6%+ .*!%+ 'a"+ That clearL


>


44/67


x x x x MC+ %6CF+ F thin' so, our Gonor+ !6%+ .*!%+ .nd after she told, 1o not accept it, hat did she doL MC+ %6CF+ F dont 'no an"more, our Gonor, #ut F understand P.B*

investigated it or F as not priv" to an" action of P.B*+

!6%+ .*!%+ ou are not priv" to an" recommendations su#mitted #"

P.B*L MC+ %6CF+ %o, our Gonor+ !6%+ .*!%+ Go did she react, as she shoc'ed also li'e "ou or as it

9ust casuall" responded to as, 1ont accept it+ MC+ %6CF+ Ft as over the phone, our Gonor, so F cannot see her facial

expression+ !6%+ .*!%+ 1id it have something to do ith "our change of heart, so to

spea' "our attitude toards the %&% pro9ect as proposed #" 4T6L MC+ %6CF+ *an "ou clarif", our Gonor, F dont understand the change of

heartL !6%+ .*!%+ eca*e, on Ma$ch 6 an) even on Nove%?e$ 1, a

ea$l" a Nove%?e$ 1, 006, )*$in( the NE oa$) #a?inet Meetin(,"o* we$e in a($ee%ent with the P$ei)ent that it ho*l) ?e !a" a "o**e an) not taAe o$ !a". he$e ho*l) ?e no (ove$n%ent *?i)" an) itho*l) ?e O o$ OO o$ an" i%ila$ che%e an) "o* we$e in a($ee%ent,"o* we$e not a$(*in(. he P$ei)ent wa not a$(*in( with "o*, "o* we$enot a$(*in( with the P$ei)ent, o "o* we$e in a($ee%ent an) all o& a*))en na*wi ta"o )oon a lahat n( an( !$o!oal all in violation o& theP$ei)ent (*i)eline an) in violation o& what "o* tho*(ht o& the!$oect.

MR. NERI. Kell, we )e&e$ to the i%!le%entin( a(enc" choice a

to how to i%!le%ent the !$oect. /EN. L#/ON. h, o "o* )e&e$ to the O#. MR. NERI. aicall", 2o*$ 'ono$, ?eca*e the" a$e the one who

can now cont$act o*t the !$oect an) in the !$oce o& cont$actin(, the"can alo )eci)e how to


45/67


/EN. PNGILINN. ou mentioned that "ou mentioned this to thePresident+ i) the P$ei)ent a&te$ that )ic*ion ove$ the !hone, wathi eve$ $aie) a(ain, the i*e o& the 00 Aa $ito

MR. NERI. Ke )i) not )ic* it a(ain, 2o*$ 'ono$. /EN. PNGILINN. Kith the P$ei)ent *t the i*e o& co*$e, the

NN )eal, wa $aie) a(ain &te$ that, ?etween "o* an) theP$ei)ent. Pinalow *! +&ollowe) *!- ?a ni"a

MR. NERI. Ma" I clai% e=ec*tive !$ivile(e, 2o*$ 'ono$, #ecause F

thin' this alread" involves conversations #eteen me and the President, ourGonor, #ecause this is alread" conDdential in nature+

x x x x !6%+ P.%BFF%.%+ ell, "ou can assert it+ &ut hether e ill accept it or

not is up to us, and then e can pro#a#l" discuss it Goever, F ill tac'le that at alater time+@20A(6mphasis and underscoring supplied) .lthough petitioner ansered man" other questions su#sequent to his invocation of the

privilege, he 'ept on invo'ing the privilege henever, in his 9udgment, the questions touched on

his further conversations ith the President on the %&% pro9ect+ Gereunder is the exchange of !enator egarda and petitioner, quoted extensivel" so as to provide the context of petitionersinvocation of executive privilege in this particular instance:

/EN. LEGR. n) when "o* e=!$ee) that *!!o$t to 'I, )oe

thi %ean the e=cl*ion o& all othe$ !$o!onent on the ?$oa)?an)!$oect

MR. NERI. Not at all, 2o*$ 'ono$. In eect, I% tellin( hi% oe e

5enecia IIIJ, I thinA it a ($eat i)ea, !leae !$ocee)+ &ut as F said, ourGonor, e never process private sector + + +

!6%+ 6B.C1.+ !uppliers contracts+ MC+ %6CF+ eah, e do not+ !6%+ 6B.C1.+ 'a", ver" clear+.lso in the letter of *hairman Camon !ales, ho is present here toda", of

the *ommission of Fnformation and *ommunications Technolog" @*F*TA dated1ecem#er 8, 200? addressed to %61., he categoricall" stated and F quote: Thathe cannot opine on the capa#ilit" of the proponent referring to .GF hich "ou hadencouraged or supported earlier, to months earlier, to underta'e the pro9ectreferring to the #road#and netor' Dnanciall" and technicall" as .GF has notidentiDed strategic partners+ 1o "ou conDrm receipt of this letterL

MC+ %6CF+ F #elieve so, our Gonor+ F remem#er that letter+ x x x x !6%+ 6B.C1.+ Fn hat a" did this opinion of the *F*T aJect "our

endorsement or encouragement of .GFL MC+ %6CF+ Fm not sure+ F thin' F encouraged him Drst #efore the *F*T letter+ !6%+ 6B.C1.+ es, that is a chronolog"+ MR. NERI. eah+ !o #" that time, e left it alread" to the line agencies to

decide+ /o it i not &o$ * an"%o$e to a" which *!!lie$ i ?ette$ than

one ove$ the othe$. /EN. LEGR. i) "o* eve$ en)o$e an" !$o!onent o& the

?$oa)?an) netwo$A, /ec$eta$" Ne$i


>5

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn20


46/67


MR. NERI. No, 2o*$ 'ono$. Khen I a" en)o$e, not &o$%all"chooin( one ove$ anothe$. Ke )o not )o that.

!6%+ 6B.C1.+ 1o "ou #elieve in the &road#and %etor' Pro9ect of

the Philippines, of the Philippine government regardless of supplierL MC+ %6CF+ The #road#and is ver" important, our Gonor+ &ecause as F said

earlier, if "ou loo' at the statistics in our #road#and cost, Philippines is ;20 permega#its per second as against

!6%+ 6B.C1.+ es, "ou have stated that earlier+ x x x x !6%+ 6B.C1.+ &ut no proponent for the local #road#and netor's had

su#mitted an" possi#le #id or an" proposal to the %61.L MC+ %6CF+ %one that e 'no of, our Gonor+ /EN. LEGR. %one that "ou 'no of+ Now, ea$lie$ "o* we$e in &avo$

o& a O ?*t event*all" chan(e) "o*$ %in) when the NE en)o$e) theDE !$oect.Ma" we Anow, ince NE i a colle(ial ?o)", whethe$ the$e

wa an" votin( into thi !$oect an) whethe$ "o* we$e o*tvote) MR. NERI. eca*e we alwa" )e&e$ to the line a(encie a to the

%anne$ o& i%!le%entation o& the !$oect. !6%+ 6B.C1.+ 'a the$e ?een an" (ove$n%ent oBcial hi(he$ than

"o* who )ictate) that the DE !$oect ?e !$io$itie) o$ (iven !$io$it" Inho$t, we$e "o* )ictate) *!on not to enco*$a(e 'I a "o*ve !$evio*l")one . . .

MR. NERI. I ai), 2o*$ 'ono$ . . . /EN. LEGR. . . . ?*t to !$e&e$ o$ !$io$itie the DE MR. NERI. 2eah. the *etion %a" involve a I ai) a

conve$ationco$$e!on)ence ?etween the P$ei)ent an) a !*?licoBcial, 2o*$ 'ono$.

!6%+ 6B.C1.+ Fm sorr"+ *an "ou sa" that againL MC+ %6CF+ .s F said, F ould li'e to invo'e !ec+ 2(a) of 6 >?>+ !6%+ 6B.C1.+ F as not even referring to a conversation #eteen "ou

and the President+ .re "ou sa"ing then that the prioriti3ation of 4T6 as involvedduring "our conversation ith the PresidentL

MC+ %6CF+ .s F said, F cannot comment on that, our Gonor+ /EN. LEGR. 2e, ?*t I wa not $e&e$$in( to an" conve$ation

?etween "o* an) the P$ei)ent ?*t "o* ?$o*(ht it *! now *!on %"*etionin( on whethe$ the$e wa an" (ove$n%ent oBcial who ha)int$*cte) "o* to &avo$ the DE. e put to and to together and it istherefore assumed that the anser to the question is conve"ed in "ourconversation ith the President to hich "ou are invo'ing that executive privilege+

MR. NERI. he$e i no hi(he$ !*?lic oBcial than %e than the

P$ei)ent, M$. #hai$, 2o*$ 'ono$.

!6%+ 6B.C1.+ Theres no higher o$cial than "ouL Ft has to #e the vicepresident + + +

MR. NERI. In othe$ wo$), when we talA a?o*t hi(he$ oBcial, I

(*e we a$e $e&e$$in( to the P$ei)ent, 2o*$ 'ono$.


>?


47/67


/EN. LEGR. /o, "o*$e invoAin( e=ec*tive !$ivile(e an)

the$e&o$e, that anwe$ to that *etion i le&t han(in(, whethe$ the$ewa an" oBcial who (ave int$*ction to !$io$itie the DE ove$ othe$!$o!onent o& the NN !$oect. n) "o*$e a"in( now that the$e wa novotin( a%on( the NE an) in &act . . .

MR. NERI. M$. #hai$, 2o*$ 'ono$, we )ont vote. Ke )ont vote on

the %anne$ o& i%!le%entation. Ke vote on whethe$ the !$oect i

)ee%e) via?le o$ not. /EN. LEGR. 2e, ?*t we$e "o* ove$$*le) ove$ "o*$ !$e&e$ence

&o$ a O !$oect MR. NERI. .s F said our Gonor, this is a consensus of the %61. &oard,

%61. F**+ O*$ conen* wa that the !$oect i via?le. Ke leave it to theline a(enc" to i%!le%ent. M" on personal preference here ill not matteran"more #ecause its a line agenc" + + +

/EN. LEGR. *t )i) "o* act*all" )ic* thi with the

P$ei)ent an) tol) he$ not to a!!$ove thi !$oect o$ not to !$ocee) withthi !$oect i) "o* )ico*$a(e the P$ei)ent &$o% !*$*in( thi

!$oect MR. NERI. I ai), M$. #hai$, thi cove$ conve$ation with the

P$ei)ent+@2/A (6mphasis and underscoring supplied) .gain, petitioner invo'ed executive privilege hen !enator Pia *a"etano as'ed him hat

else the President told him #esides instructing him not to accept the alleged #ri#e oJer+ MC+ %6CF+ !he said 1ont accept it, our Gonor+ !6%+ *.6T.%, (P)+ n) wa the$e o%ethin( attache) to that liAe .

. . *t !*$*e) with a !$oect +sic- o$ (o ahea) an) a!!$ove, o%ethin(liAe that

MR. NERI. I ai), I clai% the $i(ht o& e=ec*tive !$ivile(e on

&*$the$ )ic*ion on the . . . !6%+ *.6T.%, (P)+ .h, so thats the part here "ou invo'e "our executive

privilege, is that the same thing or is this ne, this invocation of executiveprivilegeL

M" question is, after "ou had mentioned the 200 million and she said 1ont

accept, as there an" other statement from her as to hat to do ith the pro9ectL MC+ %6CF+ .s F said, it as part of a longer conversation, our Gonor, so + + +

!6%+ *.6T.%, (P)+ . longer conversation in that same part of thatconversation on an ongoing da"-to-da", ee'-to-ee' conversationL

MC+ %6CF+ !he calls me regularl", our Gonor, to discuss various matters+ !6%+ *.6T.%+ *t in connection with, Maa% na@oe$@an aAo n(

00. h, )ont acce!t, ne=t to!ic, (anoon ?a "on O$ wa the$e liAe, la%%o, %a(an)an( !$oect ana "an, eh !e$o ?aAit na%an (an"an.

MR. NERI. I ai), 2o*$ 'ono$, ?e"on) that I wo*l) not want to

(o an" &*$the$, 2o*$ 'ono$+@22A (6mphasis and underscoring supplied)

Petitioner thereafter ansered other questions on hich he did not invo'e executiveprivilege+ Goever, hen as'ed a#out hether he advised the President not to proceed ith the%&% pro9ect in light of the alleged #ri#e oJer, petitioner again invo'ed the privilege+

/EN. L#/ON. x x x


>

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn22


48/67


Ko*l) not an oe$ o& 00 which "o* late$ on inte$!$ete) a a 00

%ilion@!eo ?$i?e oe$ &$o% #hai$%an ?alo in $elation to the NN!$oect not !oit the view that it wa an o*t$i(ht ove$!$ice) cont$act

MC+ %6CF+ e cannot determine our pricing, our Gonor+ The %61. staJ

tried ver", ver" hard + + + !6%+ .*!%+ 6ven ith an oJer of 200 million, "ou ould not thin' it as

overpricedL MC+ %6CF+ Thats right, our Gonor+ Fts possi#le that the" ta'e it out of their

poc'ets+ .nd F had a %61. staJ chec'ed the internet for possi#le overpricing+ Thenational interest issue in this case, our Gonor, is determined #" the economicrate of return+ .nd the economic rate of return as determined at 2=+?+ Ft isver" high+ Meaning that the pro9ect has its #eneDts despite an" potentialoverpricing, our Gonor+

!6%+ .*!%+ i) "o* not at leat wa$n the P$ei)ent that it co*l)

?e a !otential tinAin( )eal coni)e$in( that it wa atten)e) ?" ?$i?eoe$

MR. NERI. o$ that, 2o*$ 'ono$, I) liAe to . . . 7F*6+ 6xecutive privilege+ /EN. L#/ON. E=ec*tive !$ivile(e. MR. NERI. hat $i(ht, 2o*$ 'ono$.@2, 008 )ientin( o!inion-

>8

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio-morales.htm#_ftn23


49/67


an"thing to do ith the change in the scheme of implementation from &T to a foreign loanta'en #" the Philippine government+

In)ee), it %a" ?e (athe$e) that all th$ee *etion we$e )i$ecte) towa$) the

a%e en), na%el", to )ete$%ine the $eaon wh" the NN !$oect, )e!ite thea!!a$ent ove$!$icin(, en)e) *! ?ein( a!!$ove) ?" the E=ec*tive an) , 008 )ientin( o!inion-

>=


50/67


The second criterion laid don in Senate v. Ermita, namel", hether the privilege should#

Documents

Neri v. Senate, 03252008 Decision (DISSENTING OPINION of Puno, Carpio-Morales, Carpio)