NERI VS.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC

OFFICERS
G.R. 180643
MARCH 25, 2008

FACTS:

On April 21, 2007, the Department of Transportation and Communication

(DOTC) entered into a contract with Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment
(ZTE) for the supply of equipment and services for the National Broadband
Network (NBN) Project in the amount of U.S. $ 329,481,290 (approximately P16
Billion Pesos). The Project was to be financed by the People’s Republic of China.
The Senate passed various resolutions relative to the NBN deal. In the September
18, 2007 hearing Jose de Venecia III testified that several high executive officials
and power brokers were using their influence to push the approval of the NBN
Project by the NEDA.
Neri, the head of NEDA, was then invited to testify before the Senate Blue Ribbon.
He appeared in one hearing wherein he was interrogated for 11 hrs and during
which he admitted that Abalos of COMELEC tried to bribe him with P200M in
exchange for his approval of the NBN project. He further narrated that he informed
President Arroyo about the bribery attempt and that she instructed him not to
accept the bribe. However, when probed further on what they discussed about the
NBN Project, petitioner refused to answer, invoking “executive privilege”. In
particular, he refused to answer the questions on:
(a) whether or not President Arroyo followed up the NBN Project, (b) whether or
not she directed him to prioritize it, and (c) whether or not she directed him to
approve.
He later refused to attend the other hearings and Ermita sent a letter to the
senate averring that the communications between GMA and Neri are privileged
and that the jurisprudence laid down in Senate vs Ermita be applied. 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.

ISSUE:

Are the communications elicited by the subject three (3) questions covered
by executive privilege?

HELD:

The communications are covered by executive privilege. The revocation of

EO 464 (advised executive officials and employees to follow and abide by the
Constitution, existing laws and jurisprudence, including, among others, the case of
Senate v. Ermita when they are invited to legislative inquiries in aid of
legislation.), does not in any way diminish the concept of executive privilege. This
is because this concept has Constitutional underpinnings. The claim of executive
privilege is highly recognized in cases where the subject of inquiry relates to a
power textually committed by the Constitution to the President, such as the area of
military and foreign relations. Under our Constitution, the President is the
repository of the commander-in-chief, appointing, pardoning, and diplomatic
powers. Consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers, the information
relating to these powers may enjoy greater confidentiality than others.