THE PROVISION (SECTION 7, ARTICLE III OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION) ITSELF EXPRESSLY

PROVIDES THE LIMITATION, I.E. AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.

The provision itself expressly provides the limitation, i.e. as may be provided by law. These are in addition to
what our body of jurisprudence classifies as confidential, and what our Constitution considers as belonging to
the larger concept of executive privilege. Clearly, there is a recognized public interest in the confidentiality of
certain information. We find the information subject of this case belonging to such kind. (Neri vs. Senate
Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, G.R. No. 180643 March 25, 2008)

x—————x

THE PROVISION (SECTION 7, ARTICLE III OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION) ITSELF EXPRESSLY
PROVIDES THE LIMITATION, I.E. AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.

G.R. No. 180643 March 25, 2008

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

FACTS:

At bar is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the show cause letter and contempt order issued by
respondents against petitioner Romulo Neri, former Director General of the NEDA.

The DOTC entered into a contract with ZTE for the supply of equipment and services for the National
Broadband Network (NBN) Project. In a hearing, 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, as
head of NEDA, testified before the Senate Blue Ribbon, where he narrated that he informed President Arroyo
about COMELEC’s Abalos’ bribery attempt, and that she (Arroyo) instructed him not to accept the bribe.

Petitioner, however, refused to answer the following questions: (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, petitioner invoking executive privilege, as laid down in the case of Senate vs Ermita.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the subject three (3) questions are covered by executive privilege?

HELD:

Yes, the communications are covered by executive privilege.

The provision (of the 1987 Constitution) itself expressly provides the limitation, i.e. as may be provided by law.
These are in addition to what our body of jurisprudence classifies as confidential, and what our Constitution
considers as belonging to the larger concept of executive privilege. Clearly, there is a recognized public interest
in the confidentiality of certain information. We find the information subject of this case belonging to such kind.

Here, Executive Secretary Ermita premised his claim of executive privilege on the ground that the
communications elicited by the three questions “fall under conversation and correspondence between the
President and public officials” necessary in “her executive and policy decision-making process” and, that “the
information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s
Republic of China”

Thus, the communications elicited by the three questions are covered by the presidential communications
privilege. First, the communications relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable power” of the President, i.e.
the power to enter into an executive agreement with other countries. This authority of the President to enter into
executive agreements without the concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally been recognized in Philippine
jurisprudence. Second, the communications are “received” by a close advisor of the President. Under the
“operational proximity” test, petitioner can be considered a close advisor, being a member of President Arroyo’s
cabinet. And third, there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the limitation of the
privilege and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.