TITLE: Banco Filipino vs.

Monetary Board
CITATION: 142 SCRA 523, No. L-70054 July 8, 1986
TOPIC: Privileged Communication – State Secrets

FACTS:
Bank F filed a motion for the production, inspection, and copying of records of the
administrative proceedings conducted by (Central Bank) Monetary Board regarding the
bank’s closure. These proceedings are the ones being assailed by Bank F. The MB objected
on the ground that the tapes and transcripts of the Monetary Board deliberations are
confidential pursuant to Section 21, Rule 130, of the Rules of Court. (TAKE NOTE: 1986 case ni…
Section 24 na ni ron.)

Rule on the objection.

ANSWER:
The objection must be overruled.

Case law instructs that the rule that a public officer cannot be examined as to
communications made to him in official confidence does not apply when there is nothing to
show that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure question.

In the case at bar, the Monetary Board have not established that public interest would suffer
by the disclosure. Considering that Bank F was already closed, any disclosure of the
documents at this time pose no danger or peril to our economy nor will it trigger any bank
run nor compromise state secrets.
TITLE: Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita
CITATION: 488 SCRA 1, G.R. No. 169777, G.R. No. 169659, G.R. No. 169660, G.R. No.
169667, G.R. No. 169834, G.R. No. 171246 April 20, 2006
TOPIC: Privileged Communication – State Secrets

Hi all! Wala bitaw ni ga-discuss ug Rule 130 ang case. ☹

FACTS:
Petitions for certiorari and prohibition were filed alleging that the President has abused his
power by issuing E.O. 464 which contains a provision that all heads of departments of the
Executive Branch of the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to
appearing before either House of Congress. Does the withholding of information violate the
Constitution as to Congress’ power of inquiry?

ANSWER:
Partly.

Executive privilege, whether asserted against Congress, the courts, or the public, is
recognized only in relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character. While
executive privilege is a constitutional concept, a claim thereof may be valid or not depending
on the ground invoked to justify it and the context in which it is made.

In the case at bar, the requirement to secure presidential consent is limited only to
appearances in the question hour for under Section 22, Article VI of the Constitution, the
appearance of department heads in the question hour is discretionary on their part. However,
it cannot be applied in inquiries in aid of legislation. Congress is not bound in such
instances to respect the refusal of the department head to appear in such inquiry, unless a
valid claim of privilege is subsequently made, either by the President herself or by the
Executive Secretary.
TITLE: People vs. Invencion
CITATION: 398 SCRA 592, G.R. No. 131636 March 5, 2003
TOPIC: Parental and Filial Privilege

FACTS:
A criminal case for rape was filed against X for raping his daughter. One of the witnesses for
the prosecution was Y who is X’s son. X attacks the competency and credibility of Y as a
witness. He argues that Y, as his son, should have been disqualified as a witness against him
under the “filial privilege” rule provided in the Rules of Court. Is X correct?

ANSWER:
No.

Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court is not strictly a rule on disqualification, but it refers
to a privilege not to testify, which can be invoked or waived like other privileges.

In the case at bar, Y was not compelled to testify against his father. He chose to waive that
filial privilege when he voluntarily testified against X.