You are on page 1of 3

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 180643

September 4, 2008

ROMULO L. NERI, petitioner,


vs.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND
INVESTIGATIONS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND COMMERCE,
AND SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND
SECURITY, respondents.
xxxxxxxx
In his Comment, petitioner charges respondent Committees with exaggerating
and distorting the Decision of this Court. He avers that there is nothing in it
that prohibits respondent Committees from investigating the NBN Project or
asking him additional questions. According to petitioner, the Court merely
applied the rule on executive privilege to the facts of the case. He further
submits the following contentions: first, the assailed Decision did not reverse
the presumption against executive secrecy laid down in Senate v.
Ermita; second, respondent Committees failed to overcome the presumption
of executive privilege because it appears that they could legislate even
without the communications elicited by the three (3) questions, and they
admitted that they could dispense with petitioners testimony if certain NEDA
documents would be given to them; third, the requirement of specificity
applies only to the privilege for State, military and diplomatic secrets, not to
the necessarily broad and all-encompassing presidential communications
privilege; fourth, there is no right to pry into the Presidents thought processes
or exploratory exchanges; fifth, petitioner is not covering up or hiding anything
illegal; sixth, the Court has the power and duty to annul the Senate
Rules; seventh, the Senate is not a continuing body, thus the failure of the
present Senate to publish its Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of
Legislation (Rules) has a vitiating effect on them; eighth, the requirement for a

witness to be furnished advance copy of questions comports with due process


and the constitutional mandate that the rights of witnesses be respected;
and ninth, neither petitioner nor respondent has the final say on the matter of
executive privilege, only the Court.
xxxxxxxx

Clearly, petitioners request to be furnished an advance copy of questions is a


reasonable demand that should have been granted by respondent
Committees.
Unfortunately, the Subpoena Ad Testificandum dated November 13, 2007
made no specific reference to any pending Senate bill. It did not also inform
petitioner of the questions to be asked. As it were, the subpoena merely
commanded him to "testify on what he knows relative to the subject matter
under inquiry."

As we have stressed before, petitioner is not an unwilling witness, and


contrary to the assertion of respondent Committees, petitioner did not assume
that they no longer had any other questions for him. He repeatedly manifested
his willingness to attend subsequent hearings and respond to new matters.
His only request was that he be furnished a copy of the new questions in
advance to enable him to adequately prepare as a resource person. He did
not attend the November 20, 2007 hearing because Executive Secretary
Ermita requested respondent Committees to dispense with his testimony on
the ground of executive privilege. Note that petitioner is an executive official
under the direct control and supervision of the Chief Executive. Why punish
petitioner for contempt when he was merely directed by his superior? Besides,
save for the three (3) questions, he was very cooperative during the
September 26, 2007 hearing.
On the part of respondent Committees, this Court observes their haste and
impatience. Instead of ruling on Executive Secretary Ermitas claim of
executive privilege, they curtly dismissed it as unsatisfactory and ordered the

arrest of petitioner. They could have informed petitioner of their ruling and
given him time to decide whether to accede or file a motion for
reconsideration. After all, he is not just an ordinary witness; he is a highranking official in a co-equal branch of government. He is an alter ego of the
President. The same haste and impatience marked the issuance of the
contempt order, despite the absence of the majority of the members of the
respondent Committees, and their subsequent disregard of petitioners motion
for reconsideration alleging the pendency of his petition for certiorari before
this Court.
On a concluding note, we are not unmindful of the fact that the Executive and
the Legislature are political branches of government. In a free and democratic
society, the interests of these branches inevitably clash, but each must treat
the other with official courtesy and respect. This Court wholeheartedly concurs
with the proposition that it is imperative for the continued health of our
democratic institutions that we preserve the constitutionally mandated checks
and balances among the different branches of government.

You might also like