NERI v.

SENATE Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, Senate Committee on Trade & Commerce,
and Senate Committee on National Defense and Security

No. 180643|| Mar. 25, 2008

Ponente: Leonardo-DeCastro
FACTS
This is a petition for certiorari with application for a temporary restraining order. In a letter dated November 22,
2007, Romulo Neri was cited in contempt for his failure to attend the Blue Ribbon Committee hearing. This is in
relation to the investigation of the National Broadband Network Project (NBN Project) wherein he invoked
executive privilege when was asked about what he and President Arroyo discussed in relation to the NBN
Project. When the Blue Ribbon Committee issued a subpoena for petitioner to appear before them,
ExecutiveSecretary Ermita addressed a letter that petitioners testimony should be dispensed with as he was
invoking executive privilege by order of thePresident on the following questions, to wit:

a) Whether the President followed up the (NBN) project?

b) Were you dictated to prioritize the ZTE?

c) Whether the President said to go ahead and approve the project after being told about the alleged bribe?
The context in which executive privilege is being invoked is that the information sought to be disclosed might
impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the Peoples Republic of China.

Issues
1. Whether Executive Secretary Ermita correctly invoked executive privilege on the three questions mentioned
in his 15 November 2007 letter to the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee;

Held:

YES. Jurisprudence teaches that for the claim to be properly invoked, there must be a formal claim of privilege,
lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter."56 A formal and proper claim of
executive privilege requires a "precise and certain reason" for preserving their confidentiality. the 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 to a coordinate and co-
equal department. In addition, the court states that despite the revocation of EO 464, the executive privilege
remains as it is part of the constitution.

Further, the court makes a distinction between this case and the Nixon case, it stated that the judicial
department has the power to compel persons to unveil confidential information in the administration of justice
while the legislative does not even if it is in search for the truth.