Neri vs Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations

G.R. No. 180643, September 4, 2008

FACTS:
In April April 2007, DOTC entered into a contract with Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE)
for the supply of equipment and services for the National Broadband Network (NBN) Project in the
amount of $329,481,290.00 (approximately P16 Billion Pesos). The Project was to be financed by the
People’s Republic of China. The Senate passed various resolutions relative to the NBN deal. On the other
hand, Joe De Venecia issued a statement that several high executive officials and power brokers were
using their influence to push the approval of the NBN Project by the NEDA.

Neri, the head of NEDA, was then invited to testify before the Senate Blue Ribbon. He appeared in one
hearing wherein he was interrogated for 11 hrs and during which he admitted that Abalos of COMELEC
tried to bribe him with P200M in exchange for his approval of the NBN project. He further narrated that
he informed President Arroyo about the bribery attempt and that she instructed him not to accept the
bribe. However, when probed further on what they discussed about the NBN Project, Neri refused to
answer, invoking “executive privilege“. In particular, he refused to answer the 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. He later refused to attend the other hearings and
Ermita sent a letter to the SBRC averring that the communications between GMA and Neri is privileged
and that the jurisprudence laid down in Senate vs Ermita be applied. The SBRC cited Neri for contempt.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the three questions sought by the SBRC to be answered falls under executive privilege.

HELD:
The oversight function of Congress may be facilitated by compulsory process only to the extent that it is
performed in pursuit of legislation.

The communications elicited by the three (3) questions are covered by the presidential communications
privilege.

1st, the communications relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable power” of the President, i.e. the
power to enter into an executive agreement with other countries. This authority of the President to enter
into executive agreements without the concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally been recognized
in Philippine jurisprudence.

2nd, the communications are “received” by a close advisor of the President. Under the “operational
proximity” test, petitioner can be considered a close advisor, being a member of President Arroyo’s
cabinet. And

3rd, there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the limitation of the privilege
and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.