6 NERI VS Petitioner Romulo Neri disclosed that then COMELEC The Court articulated in these cases that “there
these cases that “there are certain types of
SENATE Chairman Benjamin Abalos offered him P200 Million in
exchange for his approval of the NBN Project. He further
GR NO 180643 narrated that he informed President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo of the bribery attempt and that she instructed him not
SEPT. 24, 2008 to accept the bribe. However, when probed further on
NBN ZTE deal President Arroyo and petitioner’s discussions relating to the
NBN Project, petitioner refused to answer, invoking
“executive privilege.” To be specific, petitioner refused to
answer questions on: (a) whether or not President Arroyo
followed up the NBN Project, (b) whether or not she directed
him to prioritize it, and (c) whether or not she directed him to
approve it.
information which the government may withhold from the public,” that there
is a “governmental privilege against public disclosure with respect to state
secrets regarding military, diplomatic and other national security matters;”
and that “the right to information does not extend to matters recognized as
‘privileged information’ under the separation of powers, by which the Court
meant Presidential conversations, correspondences, and discussions in
closed-door Cabinet meetings.”
The Letter stated: 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 People’s Republic of China. Given the
confidential nature in which this information were conveyed to the
President, he cannot provide the Committee any further details of
these conversations, without disclosing the very thing the privilege is
designed to protect.
Considering that the information sought through the three (3) questions
subject of this Petition involves the President’s dealings with a foreign
nation, with more reason, this Court is wary of approving the view that
Congress may peremptorily inquire into not only official, documented acts of
the President but even her confidential and informal discussions with her
close advisors on the pretext that said questions serve some vague
legislative need. Regardless of who is in office, this Court can easily foresee
unwanted consequences of subjecting a Chief Executive to unrestricted
congressional inquiries done with increased frequency and great publicity.
No Executive can effectively discharge constitutional functions in the
face of intense and unchecked legislative incursion into the core of
the President’s decision-making process, which inevitably would
involve her conversations with a member of her Cabinet.