PERSONS Doctrine: Effectivity of Laws (Art.

2)
Title GR No.180643

Neri vs. Senate SENATE COMMITTEE ON Date: September 4, 2008

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS, Ponente:
et. Al

ROMULO L. NERI, petitioner SENATE COMMITTEE ON

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATIONS,
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND
COMMERCE, AND SENATE
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE
AND SECURITY,
Respondents.

Nature of the case: The case at bar is petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court assailing the show cause Letter, dated November 22, 2007 and contempt Order
dated January 30, 2008 concurrently issued by respondent Senate Committees on
Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, Trade and Commerce, and National
Defense and Security against petitioner Romulo L. Neri, former Director General of the
National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA).
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 Peoples Republic of China. Respondent Committees initiated the investigation
dated September 18, 20, and 26 and October 25, 2007. Petitioner was only able to attend
the September 26 hearing, claiming he was out of town during the other dates. On the
September 18 hearing, Jose de Venecia III testified that certain high ranking officials
pushed for the approval of the NBN Project. On the September 26 hearing, Petitioner
testified petitioner for 11 hours. Saying that COMELEC Chairman Abalos offered him
P200M in exchange for his approval of the NBN Project and disclosed that President
Arroyo told 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. Petiotioner refused to answer the questions on (1) whether or not President
Arroyo followed up the NBN Project, (2) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it,
and (3) whether or not she directed him to approve.

Petitoner's counsel, Atty. Antonio R. Bautista, said in a letter that (1) Petitioner's non-
appearance was upon the order of the President; and (2) Petitioner's conversation with
President Arroyo dealt with delicate and sensitive national security and diplomatic matters
(China-PH relations). Letter ended with a reiteration of petitioners request that he be
furnished in advance as to what else he needs to Letter unsatisfactory; without responding
to his request for advance notice they issued the Order dated January 30, 2008, citing him
in contempt of respondent Committees and ordering his arrest and detention at the Office
of the Senate Sergeant-At-Arms until such time that he would appear and give his
testimony.
ISSUE/S
1. WON the communications elicited by the subject three (3) questions covered by
executive privilege? - YES
2. WON respondent Committees commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the
contempt Order? - YES
RATIO
I. The Communications Elicited by the Three (3) Questions are Covered by
Executive Privilege - because; (1), 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. (2), the
communications are received by a close advisor of the President - petitioner
can be considered a close advisor, being a member of President Arroyos
cabinet. (3), 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.

II. Respondent Committees Committed Grave Abuse of Discretion in Issuing the

Contempt Order - YES
(1) There being a legitimate claim of executive privilege, the issuance of the contempt
Order suffers from constitutional infirmity. (2), Respondent Committees did not comply
with the requirement laid down in Senate v. Ermita that the invitations should contain the
possible needed statute which prompted the need for the inquiry, along with the usual
indication of the subject of inquiry and the questions relative to and in furtherance thereof.
(3) A reading of the transcript of respondent Committees January 30, 2008 proceeding
reveals that only a minority of the members of the Senate Blue Ribbon (4) Court finds
merit in the argument that respondent Committees likewise violated Section 21 of Article
VI of the Constitution - requiring that the inquiry be in accordance with the duly published
rules of procedure Not having published its Rules of Procedure, the subject hearings in aid
of legislation conducted by the 14th Senate. (5) Respondent Committees issuance of the
contempt Order is arbitrary and precipitate, Respondent did not first pass upon the claim
of executive privilege and inform petitioner of their ruling and instend dismissed
Petitioner's explanation as unsatisfactory and simultaneously issued the Order citing him
in contempt and ordering his immediate arrest and detention.
WHEREFORE the petition is hereby GRANTED. The subject Order dated January 30,
2008, citing petitioner Romulo L. Neri in contempt of the Senate Committees and directing
his arrest and detention, is hereby nullified.
1-C 2015-16 (TOLENTINO)

Full text: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_180643_2008.html