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

Political Law- Senate of the Phils. vs. Ermita

POLITICAL LAW- THIS CASE IS WITH REGARD TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF E.O. 464

"A transparent government is one of the hallmarks of a republican state. History has been witness to the fact that the power to withhold information lends itself to abuse, hence the need to guard it zealously."


Case of Senate of the Phils. vs. Ermita
G.R.No. 169777 20April2006

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On September 23, 2005, the committee of the senate as a whole issued invitations to various officials of the executive department and Military officials for them to appear as resource speakers in a public hearing on the North Rail Project, and on the issues of “Gloriagate,” Wire-tapping of the President, Electoral fraud, as was shown in the respective privileged speeches of the Senators.

On September 27 & 28 2005, after being invited most of those “resource persons” were not able to make it due to prior commitments (i.e. military officials), while on 27 September then Senate President Drilon, received a letter from Executive Secretary Ermita requesting a postponement of the hearing (re: Northrail).

On September 28, 2005 the president issued E.O 464, and Ermita sent a letter to the Senate President, informing him of the E.O. and that the resource persons from the executive dept would not be able to attend w/o the consent of the president. With regard to the hearing on the wire-tapping of the President, Col. Balutan and Gen. Gudani were relieved from their military posts and faced court martial proceedings for testifying w/o the president’s approval.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

IS E.O. 464 VALID?

- The congress has the power of inquiry that is expressly recognized by ART 6.21 of the Constitution, where congress may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation
- Since congress has authority to inquire into the operations of the executive branch, it would be inconsistent to hold that the power of inquiry does not extend to executive officials who are the most familiar with and informed on the executive operations, although there are exemptions to the power of inquiry which exemptions fall under the rubric of “executive privilege” (the power of the government to withhold info from the public, the courts, the congress) it is only recognized in relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character, and it is inclined heavily against secrecy and in favor of disclosure.
- The power of congress to compel the appearance of exec officials under sec 21 and the lack of it under sec 22 find their basis in the principle of Separation of Powers. While the exec branch is a co-equal branch of the legislature, it cannot frustrate the power of congress to legislate by refusing to comply w/ its demands for info.
- Congress undoubtedly has a right to information from the executive branch, whenever it is sought in aid of legislation. If the executive branch withholds such information on the ground that it is privileged, it must so assert it and state the reason therefore and why it must be respected.

HELD:
PETITIONS ARE PARTLY GRANTED, Sec(s) 2(b) &3 of E.O. 464 ARE DECLARED VOID. Sec(s) 1&2(a) ARE HOWEVER, VALID.


I hope this helps.

Jeff David