Sep 1, 2009

Political Law- Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations

POLITICAL LAW- THIS IS WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF THE CHECKS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER OF INQUIRY

"what are the checks to the Legislature's all encompassing, awesome power of investigation?

The right to information by congress is not an absolute right"


Case of Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations
G.R.No. 180643 04September2008

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On September 26, 2007, Neri; appeared before the respondent committees and testified for about 11 hours on the matters concerning the National Broadband Project, a project awarded to a Chinese company ZTE. The Petitioner therein disclosed that when he was offered by Abalos a bribe of 200 million pesos to approve the project, he informed PGMA of the attempt and she instructed him not to accept the bribe. However when he was probed further on PGMA’s and petitioner’s discussions relating to the NBN Project, petitioner refused to answer, invoking exec privilege. The questions that he refused to answer were:

1. whether or not PGMA followed up the NBN Project.
2. whether or not PGMA directed him to prioritize it.
3. whether or not PGMA directed him to approve it.

The petitioner did not appear before the respondent committees upon orders of the President invoking exec privilege. He explained that the questions asked of him are covered by exec privilege. He was cited in contempt of respondent committees and an order for his arrest and detention until such time that he would appear and give his testimony.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:
1. Is there a recognized presumptive presidential communications privilege in our legal system?
2. Did the respondent committee commit a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the contempt order?

- YES, presidential communications privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the constitution.
- The constitutional infirmity found in the blanket authorization to invoke exec privilege granted by the President to exec officials in sec 2(b) of E.O. 464 does not apply in this case.
- In this case, it was the President herself, through exec sec. Ermita, who invoked exec privilege on a specific matter involving an exec agreement between Philippines and China, which was the subject of the 3 questions asked.
- If what is involved is the presumptive privilege of presidential communications when invoked by the President on a matter clearly within the domain of the Executive, the said presumption dictates that the same be recognized.
- YES, an unconstrained congressional investigative power, like an unchecked executive generates its own abuses.
- Constant exposure to congressional subpoena takes its toll on the ability of the executive to function effectively.
- The Legislative inquiry must be confined to permissible areas and thus prevent “roving commissions.”
- The court although a co-equal branch of government to the legislature, must look into the internal rules of congress w/ regard to ensuring compliance by congress to it. Since, the issuance of a contempt order must be done by a vote of majority of all its members. The issuance of the order was w/o concurrence of the majority.

HELD:
RESPONENTS COMMITTEES’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED 08APRIL2008 IS HEREBY DENIED.


I hope this helps.

Jeff David

1 comment:

  1. Thanks for this! Grabe it helps atleast na mabawasan ung cases namin.. :))

    ReplyDelete

If you have any comments on the above cases or topics, by all means!