Case Digest: Romulo L. Neri vs.

Senate Committee on Accountability

of Public Officers and Investigations, et. al.
G.R. No. 180643 25 March 2008

FACTS:

On April 21, 2007, the DOTC entered into a contract with ZTE for the supply of equipment and services for the NBN
Project in the amount of nearly Php6B and was to be financed by the Republic of China. Several Resolutions regarding
the investigation and implications on national security and government-xto-government contracts regarding the NBN
Project were introduced in Senate. Respondent Committees initiated the investigation by sending invitations to certain
personalities and cabinet officials involved in the NBN Project. Petitioner was summoned to appear and he testified to
the Committees for eleven (11) hours, but refused to answer three important questions, invoking his right to executive
privilege. For failing to appear in the other days that he was summoned, Neri was held in contempt.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Neri can invoke executive privilege;

2. Whether the invocation of executive privilege violate Sec. 28, Art. II and Sec. 7, Art. III; and
3. Whether the Committees gravely abused their discretion by holding Neri in contempt.

RULING:

1. The communications elicited by the three questions are covered by executive privilege. Despite the revocation
of E.O. 464, there is a recognized claim of executive privilege. The privilege is said to be a necessary guarantee
of presidential advisors to provide “the President and those who assist him with freedom to explore alternatives
in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express
except privately.” Furthermore, the claim was properly invoked by the letter provided by Executive Secretary
Ermita stating the precise and certain reason that the said information may impair the country’s diplomatic as
well as economic relations with the Republic of China.
2. The petitioner was able to appear in at least one of the days where he was summoned and expressly manifested
his willingness to answer more questions from the Senators, with the exception only of those covered by his
claim of executive privilege. The right to public information and full public disclosure of transactions, like any
other right, is subject to limitation. These include those that are classified by the body of jurisprudence as
highly confidential. The information subject to this case belongs to such kind.
3. The Committees violated Sec. 21, Art. VI of the Constitution for having failed to publish its Rules of
Procedure. Inquiries are required to be in accordance with the “duly published rules of procedure.” Without
these, the aid of legislation are procedurally infirm.