G.R. No.

180643, March 25, 2008

Legislative Inquiry in Aid of Legislation vs. Legislative Inquiry during Question Hour Elements of Presidential Communications Privilege Exception to Executive Privilege

FACTS: T is is regarding t e contract entered into !y "#TC $it %TE for t e supply of equipment and services for t e &'& Pro(ect. In connection $it t is &'& Pro(ect) *enate passed various +esolutions and pending !ills) $ ic it t en used as !asis for initiating an investigation. #ne of t e ca!inet officials invited to appear !efore t e *enate during t e investigation $as Petitioner) $ o $as "irector ,eneral of &E"A at t e time. "uring t e --. our questioning) Petitioner invo/ed executive privilege and refused to ans$er t e questions on 0a1 $ et er or not President Arroyo follo$ed up t e &'& Pro(ect) 0!1 $ et er or not s e directed im to prioriti2e it) and 0c1 $ et er or not s e directed im to approve. In vie$ of is refusal) t e *enate 'lue +i!!on Committee issued a su!poena ad testificandum) to $ ic Petitioner replied t at e $as $illing to testify to ot er matters !esides t ose t ree questions covered !y 3executive privilege4 and t at e $anted to !e furnis ed !efore and matters to !e ta/en up during t e inquiry so t at e may adequately prepare t erefor. Executive *ecretary Ermita also sent a letter to t e 'lue +i!!on) affirming t at indeed t ose t ree questions mentioned $ere covered !y 3executive privilege4 !ecause suc information if disclosed mig t impair diplomatic as $ell as economic relations $it t e People5s +epu!lic of C ina. As suc ) t e #ffice of t e President as ordered Petitioner not to ans$er t ose questions. &evert eless) t e 'lue +i!!on issued a s o$ cause Letter and a contempt #rder against Petitioner. T us) t is case.

ISSUE: Are the co !"#cat#o"$ e%#c#te& '( the $!')ect three *3+ ,!e$t#o"$ co-ere& '( e.ec!t#-e /r#-#%e0e1 RU2ING: IN AI3 4F 2EGIS2ATI4N: Sco/e a"& 2# #tat#o"$ 55

T e po$er of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is !road. T is is !ased on t e proposition t at a legislative !ody cannot legislate $isely or effectively in t e a!sence of information respecting t e conditions $ ic t e legislation is intended to affect or c ange. Inevita!ly) ad(unct t ereto is t e compulsory process to enforce it. 'ut) t e po$er) !road as it is) as limitations. To !e valid) it is imperative t at it is done in accordance $it t e *enate or House duly pu!lis ed rules of procedure and t at t e rig ts of t e persons appearing in or affected !y suc inquiries !e respected. T e po$er extends even to executive officials and t e only $ay for t em to !e exempted is t roug a valid claim of executive privilege. Is t ere recogni2ed claim of executive privilege despite revocation of E.#. 6768 At t is (uncture) it must !e stressed t at t e revocation of E.#. 676 does not in any $ay diminis our concept of executive privilege. T is is !ecause t is concept as Constitutional underpinnings. E2EMENTS 4F 6RESI3ENTIA2 C4MMUNICATI4NS 6RI7I2EGE: -1 T e protected communication must relate to a 3quintessential and non.delega!le presidential po$er.4 91 T e communication must !e aut ored or 3solicited and received4 !y a close advisor of t e President or t e President imself. T e (udicial test is t at an advisor must !e in 3operational proximity4 $it t e President.

:1 T e presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege t at may !e overcome !y a s o$ing of adequate need) suc t at t e information soug t 3li/ely contains important evidence4 and !y t e unavaila!ility of t e information else$ ere !y an appropriate investigating aut ority. ;sing t e a!ove elements) $e are convinced t at) indeed) t e communications elicited !y t e t ree 0:1 questions are covered !y t e presidential communications privilege. <irst) t e communications relate to a 3quintessential and non.delega!le po$er4 of t e President) i.e. t e po$er to enter into an executive agreement $it ot er countries. T is aut ority of t e President to enter into executive agreements $it out t e concurrence of t e Legislature as traditionally !een recogni2ed in P ilippine (urisprudence. *econd) t e communications are 3received4 !y a close advisor of t e President. ;nder t e 3operational proximity4 test) petitioner can !e considered a close advisor) !eing a mem!er of President Arroyo5s ca!inet. And t ird) t ere is no adequate s o$ing of a compelling need t at $ould (ustify t e limitation of t e privilege and of t e unavaila!ility of t e information else$ ere !y an appropriate investigating aut ority. +espondent Committees failed to s o$ a compelling or critical need= xxx presidential communications are presumptively privileged and t at t e presumption can !e overcome only !y mere s o$ing of pu!lic need !y t e !ranc see/ing access to conversations xxxx Here) t e record is !ereft of any categorical explanation from respondent Committees to s o$ a compelling or critical need for t e ans$ers to t e t ree 0:1 questions in t e enactment of a la$. Instead) t e questions veer more to$ards t e exercise of t e legislative oversig t function under *ection 99 of Article >I rat er t an *ection 9- of t e same Article. *enate v. Ermita ruled t at 3t e oversig t function of Congress may !e facilitated !y compulsory process only to t e extent t at it is performed in pursuit of legislation.4 It is conceded t at it is difficult to dra$ t e line !et$een an inquiry in aid of legislation and an inquiry in t e exercise of oversig t function of Congress. In t is regard) muc $ill depend on t e content of t e questions and t e manner of inquiry is conducted. E8CE6TI4N T4 E8ECUTI7E 6RI7I2EGE: 93e o"$trate&, $/ec#:#c "ee& :or e-#&e"ce #" /e"&#"0 cr# #"a% tr#a%; *US -.

N#.o"+ &oe$ "ot a//%( 55 In &ixon) t ere is a pending criminal proceeding $ ere t e information is requested and it is t e demands of due process of la$ and t e fair administration of criminal (ustice t at t e information !e disclosed. T is is t e reason $ y t e ;* Court $as quic/ to 3limit t e scope of its decision.4 It stressed t at it is 3not concerned ere $it t e !alance !et$een t e President5s generali2ed interest in confidentiality xxx and congressional demands for information.4 ;nli/e in &ixon) t e information ere is elicited) not in a criminal proceeding) !ut in a legislative inquiry. In t is regard) *enate v. Ermita stressed t at t e validity of t e claim of executive privilege depends not only on t e ground invo/ed !ut) also) on t e procedural setting or t e context in $ ic t e claim is made. <urt ermore) in &ixon) t e President did not interpose any claim of need to protect military) diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets. In t e present case) Executive *ecretary Ermita categorically claims executive privilege on t e grounds of presidential communications privilege in relation to er executive and policy decision.ma/ing process and diplomatic secrets. E.ec!t#-e 6r#-#%e0e -#$5a5-#$ R#0ht o: the 6eo/%e to I":or at#o" o" Matter$ o: 6!'%#c Co"cer" T e rig t to pu!lic information) li/e any ot er rig t) is su!(ect to limitation. T e provision 0*ection ?) Article III1 itself provides t e limitations) i.e. as may !e provided !y la$. *ome of t ese la$s are *ec. ?) +A 7?-:) Art. 99@) +PC) *ec. :0/1) +A :A-@) and *ec. 960e1) +ule -:A) +#C. T ese are in addition to $ at our !ody of (urisprudence clarifies as confidential and $ at our Constitution considers as !elonging to t e larger concept of executive privilege. Clearly) t ere is a recogni2ed pu!lic interest in t e confidentiality of certain information. Be find t e information su!(ect of t is case !elonging to suc /ind. Legislative Inquiry in Aid of Legislation vis.a.vis +ig t of t e People to Information on Catters of Pu!lic Concern= Core t an anyt ing else) t oug ) t e rig t of Congress or any of its Committees to o!tain information in aid of legislation cannot !e equated $it t e people5s rig t to pu!lic information. T e former cannot claim t at every legislative inquiry is an exercise of t e

people5s rig t to information. xxx T e mem!ers of respondent Committees s ould not invo/e as (ustification in t eir exercise of po$er a rig t properly !elonging to t e people in general. T is is !ecause $ en t ey disc arge t eir po$er) t ey do so as pu!lic officials and mem!ers of Congress. 'e t at as it may) t e rig t to information must !e !alanced $it and s ould give $ay) in appropriate cases) to constitutional precepts particularly t ose pertaining to delicate interplay of executive.legislative po$ers and privileges $ ic is t e su!(ect of careful revie$ !y numerous decided cases.