Professional Documents
Culture Documents
three (3) specific questions, did not in any way curb the publics right to
information or diminish the importance of public accountability and
transparency.
This Court did not rule that the Senate has no power to investigate the NBN
Project in aid of legislation. There is nothing in the assailed Decision that
prohibits respondent Committees from inquiring into the NBN Project. They
could continue the investigation and even call petitioner Neri to testify again.
He himself has repeatedly expressed his willingness to do so. Our Decision
merely excludes from the scope of respondents investigation the three (3)
questions that elicit answers covered by executive privilege and rules that
petitioner cannot be compelled to appear before respondents to answer the
said questions
In Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government,40 it was stated
that there are no specific laws prescribing the exact limitations within which
the right may be exercised or the correlative state duty may be obliged.
Nonetheless, it enumerated the recognized restrictions to such rights, among
them: (1) national security matters, (2) trade secrets and banking transactions,
(3) criminal matters, and (4) other confidential information. National security
matters include state secrets regarding military and diplomatic matters, as well
as information on inter-government exchanges prior to the conclusion of
treaties and executive agreements. It was further held that even where
there is no need to protect such state secrets, they must be "examined
in strict confidence and given scrupulous protection."
Third, respondent Committees claim that the Court erred in upholding the
Presidents invocation, through the Executive Secretary, of executive privilege
because (a) between respondent Committees specific and demonstrated
need and the Presidents generalized interest in confidentiality, there is a need
to strike the balance in favor of the former; and (b) in the balancing of interest,
the Court disregarded the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution on
government transparency, accountability and disclosure of information
It must be stressed that the Presidents claim of executive privilege is not
merely founded on her generalized interest in confidentiality. The Letter dated
November 15, 2007 of Executive Secretary Ermita specified presidential
communications privilege in relation to diplomatic and economic
relations with another sovereign nation as the bases for the claim.
Even in Senate v. Ermita, it was held that Congress must not require the
Executive to state the reasons for the claim with such particularity as to
compel disclosure of the information which the privilege is meant to protect.
This is a matter of respect for a coordinate and co-equal department.