This case involves a petition for certiorari filed by Romulo Neri, who was cited for contempt by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee for failing to attend a hearing regarding the investigation of the National Broadband Network Project. Neri had invoked executive privilege when asked about his discussions with President Arroyo on the project. The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Secretary Ermita correctly invoked executive privilege in response to the Senate committee's questions about Neri's discussions with the President. The court found that executive privilege remains part of the Constitution despite the revocation of the executive order originally establishing it.
This case involves a petition for certiorari filed by Romulo Neri, who was cited for contempt by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee for failing to attend a hearing regarding the investigation of the National Broadband Network Project. Neri had invoked executive privilege when asked about his discussions with President Arroyo on the project. The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Secretary Ermita correctly invoked executive privilege in response to the Senate committee's questions about Neri's discussions with the President. The court found that executive privilege remains part of the Constitution despite the revocation of the executive order originally establishing it.
This case involves a petition for certiorari filed by Romulo Neri, who was cited for contempt by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee for failing to attend a hearing regarding the investigation of the National Broadband Network Project. Neri had invoked executive privilege when asked about his discussions with President Arroyo on the project. The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Secretary Ermita correctly invoked executive privilege in response to the Senate committee's questions about Neri's discussions with the President. The court found that executive privilege remains part of the Constitution despite the revocation of the executive order originally establishing it.
This case involves a petition for certiorari filed by Romulo Neri, who was cited for contempt by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee for failing to attend a hearing regarding the investigation of the National Broadband Network Project. Neri had invoked executive privilege when asked about his discussions with President Arroyo on the project. The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Secretary Ermita correctly invoked executive privilege in response to the Senate committee's questions about Neri's discussions with the President. The court found that executive privilege remains part of the Constitution despite the revocation of the executive order originally establishing it.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
NERI v.
SENATE Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, Senate Committee on Trade & Commerce, and Senate Committee on National Defense and Security
No. 180643|| Mar. 25, 2008
Ponente: Leonardo-DeCastro FACTS This is a petition for certiorari with application for a temporary restraining order. In a letter dated November 22, 2007, Romulo Neri was cited in contempt for his failure to attend the Blue Ribbon Committee hearing. This is in relation to the investigation of the National Broadband Network Project (NBN Project) wherein he invoked executive privilege when was asked about what he and President Arroyo discussed in relation to the NBN Project. When the Blue Ribbon Committee issued a subpoena for petitioner to appear before them, ExecutiveSecretary Ermita addressed a letter that petitioners testimony should be dispensed with as he was invoking executive privilege by order of thePresident on the following questions, to wit:
a) Whether the President followed up the (NBN) project?
b) Were you dictated to prioritize the ZTE?
c) Whether the President said to go ahead and approve the project after being told about the alleged bribe? The context in which executive privilege is being invoked is that the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the Peoples Republic of China.
Issues 1. Whether Executive Secretary Ermita correctly invoked executive privilege on the three questions mentioned in his 15 November 2007 letter to the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee;
Held:
YES. Jurisprudence teaches that for the claim to be properly invoked, there must be a formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter."56 A formal and proper claim of executive privilege requires a "precise and certain reason" for preserving their confidentiality. the Congress must not require the executive to state the reasons for the claim with such particularity as to compel disclosure of the information which the privilege is meant to protect. This is a matter of respect to a coordinate and co- equal department. In addition, the court states that despite the revocation of EO 464, the executive privilege remains as it is part of the constitution.
Further, the court makes a distinction between this case and the Nixon case, it stated that the judicial department has the power to compel persons to unveil confidential information in the administration of justice while the legislative does not even if it is in search for the truth.
