Shirley P.

Briz

BLOCK A

NERI VS. SENATE G.R. No. 180643

FACTS: A petition was filed by Romulo L. Neri, the former director of NEDA, against the case filed by the Senate Committees on Accountability of Public Offices and Investigation, Trade and Commerce, and National Defense and Security. This is in connection with the contract entered by DOTC with ZTE on April 21, 2007 for the supply of equipment and services for the NBI project amounting to US $329,481,290 (Approximately 16 Billion Pesos). The project was to be financed by the Peoples Republic of China. Several resolutions were introduced to the Senate in connection with the NBN project, hence the initiation of the respondent committees to conduct an investigation and at the same time in consideration of the 3 pending bills in which they claimed related to the same issues. Petitioner was summoned to appear and testify on September 18, 20, 26 and October 25, 2007. However he only appeared on September 26 wherein he divulged that COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos attempted to bribe him and he informed President Arroyo about it. But then he refused to answer probing questions regarding his discussion with the President on the NBN Project, invoking executive privilege. Hence the issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum to the petitioner. Still Neri did not appear and he just sent a letter in reply to the summon which resulted to an order citing him for contempt and ordered him arrested as well as detained in the Office of the Senate Sgt. at arms until he appears and give testimony. Thus, on the same date, petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the order.

ISSUES: a.) Whether or not the communications between the President and Neri are covered by the executive principle. b.) Whether or not respondent committees letter and contempt order were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess jurisdiction.

RULINGS:

The Supreme Court granted the petition of Romulo Neri. The subject order dated Jan. 30, 2008 was nullified. The Court ruled that the claim of executive privilege is properly invoked. The letter of Executive Secretary Ermita dated Nov. 17, 2007 satisfied the requirement which served as the formal claim of the privilege. As to the 2nd issue, the court held that the respondent committee committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the contempt order in view of the following reasons such as the existence of legitimate claim of executive privilege, non-compliance with the requirement under sec. 21 and 22 of Art. VI of the Constitution, no forum of the deliberation which is against the Sec. 18 of the Rules of Procedure Governing inquiries in aid of legislation, violation of Sec. 21 of Art. VI of the Constitution and issuance of Contempt Order is arbitrary. It is of greatest concern that the witness showed willingness to testify and even attended one session of queries. Separation of powers was given emphasis as to the only way of preservation of democratic stability and upheld the Rule of Law even for the search of truth.

Shirley P. Briz

BLOCK A

IN CHONG VS. HERNANDEZ G.R. No. L-7995 May 31, 1957

FACTS: The Congress of the Philippines enacted the act which rationalizes the retail trade business, R.A. 1180, entitled An Act to Regulate the Retail Business prohibiting aliens in general to engage in retail trade in our country. Petitioners, for and in his own behalf and own behalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships adversely affected by the provision brought this action to obtain a judicial declaration that said act is unconstitutional.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Congress violated the UN Charter, The UN declaration of human rights and the Phil-Chinese Treaty of Amity upon the enactment of R.A. 1180.

RULING:

The petition was denied on the grounds that no violation of human rights and any treaties; that the enactment clearly falls within the scope of police power of the state, thru which by which it protects its own personality and ensures its security and future; and recognizing privilege of aliens already engaged in the occupation and reasonably protects their privilege.