Per Curiam Decision of the Supreme Court in connection with the Letter of the House Prosecution Panel to

Subpoena Justices of the Supreme Court

Februaru 14, 2012; Per Curiam
Digest prepared by Laurence A. Mopera

I. FACTS
1. During the impeachment proceedings of ex Chief Justice Corona, the prosecution panel manifested in a
COMPLIANCE that it would present 100 witnesses and almost 1 thousand documents from private and public
offices.
2. The list if witnesses included Justices of the Supreme Court, and Court officials and employees to testify on
matters internal to the court.
3. Letters were then sent to the SC asking for examination of records, and issuance of certified true copies of the
rollos and the Agenda and Minutes of the Deliberations with respect to the following cases:
a. FASAP v. PAL (then pending on the merits) – rollo, agenda and minutes
b. Navarro v. Ermita or the Dinagat Case (then pending on the merits) – rollo
c. Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez v. The House of Representatives Committee on Justice, et al. (closed and terminated
case) – rollo
d. League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC (closed and terminated case) – rollo
4. The House Impeachment Panel requested for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum for
the production of the records of the case and the attendance of Justices, officials and employees of the SC.
5. However, Hon. Presiding Senator-Judge Juan Ponce Enrile denied the request for subpoena ad testificandum to
JJ. Villarama, Sereno, Reyes and Velasco.
6. On February 10, 2012, Atty. Vidal, the Clerk of the Supreme Court, brought to the SC’s attention the subpoena
ad testificandum et duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum she received commanding her to appear at
10am on February 13, 2010 with the documents listed above and testify. She was likewise commanded to
appear at 2pm of the same day and everyday thereafter for the same purpose.

II.ISSUES
Whether or not the Supreme Court may refuse to comply with the subpoena ad testificandum et duces tecum and
subpoena ad testificandum [YES]

III. HELD
1. As to Fasap v. PAL – SC cannot grant the request
2. As to Navarro v. Ermita – SC cannot grant the request
3. As to Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez v. The House of Representatives Committee on Justice – SC cannot grant
the request
4. As to League of Cities v. COMELEC – SC cannot grant the request.

IV. RATIO
THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY
1. There exists the doctrine of separation of powers as an essential component of democratic and republican
system not by virtue of the constitution but as underlying principle that constitutes the bedrock of the system
of checks and balances.
2. Each branch of the government is separate, co-equal and coordinate and supreme within its own sphere
under the legal and political reality of one overarching Constitution that governs one government and one
nation.
3. The Court’s mandate is to keep these branches within the exercise of their respective spheres.
4. Equally important is the principle of comity or the practice of voluntarily observing inter-departmental
courtesy in undertaking their assigned constitutional duties.
5. In appreciating areas wholly assigned to a particular branch, the courts tread carefully. They exercise restraint
and intervene only when there is grave abuse of discretion.
6. There is no hard and fast rule; it is largely a weighing of public interest involved. As against guaranteed
individual rights and the attendant larger public interest, it is the latter which ultimately prevails.
a. Example of such is an impeachment trial which is specifically assigned to the Senate by the Constitution.
ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS – A POLICY OF TRANSPARENCY
1. The right to information is granted to the people by Section 7, Article III of the Constitution. [Please refer to
Consti Codal]
2. This right to information is not absolute. Private individuals also have right to privacy. Even in institutions like
governmental departments and agencies, there exists a right to confidentiality. This is based on the need to
protect the integrity of their mandated tasks under the Constitution.
3. Pursuant to the public’s right to information, the Court incorporated such policy in the Rules of Court on Rule
136.11 - Certified copies.—The clerk shall prepare, for any person demanding the same, a copy certified under the seal
of the court of any paper, record, order, judgment, or entry in his office, proper to be certified, for the fees prescribed by
these rules.
4. This right however is subject to the limitations under the law and the Court’s own rules.

WHEN COURT RECORDS ARE CONSIDERED CONFIDENTIAL

1. Certain information contained in the records of the cases before the SC are considered confidential and
exempt from disclosure.
2. Specifically, the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (IRSC) prohibits disclosure of:
a. Raffle of cases [Rule 7, Section 3 of the IRSC] – this is available only to the parties and their counsels
unless involving bar matters, administrative cases and criminal cases involving penalty of life
imprisonment in which case the results of the raffle are not disclosed even to the parties themselves.
b. The actions taken by the court included in the Agenda of the court’s session [Rule 10, Section 2 of the
IRSC].
i. This is treated with strict confidentiality. Only after official release of the resolution embodying the
court action in that case may the action be made available to the public.
ii. A resolution is considered officially released once the envelope containing its final copy, addressed to
the parties, has been transmitted to the process server.
c. The deliberations of the members in the court sessions on cases and matters pending before it [Rule
10 Section 2 of the IRSC].
i. Rule 10, Section 2. Confidentiality of court sessions. – Court sessions are executive in character, with
only the Members of the Court present. Court deliberations are confidential and shall not be disclosed
to outside parties, except as may be provided herein or as authorized by the Court
ii. The rationale of this rule is discussed in Arroyo v. De Lima: to enable the members of the
court to freely discuss issues without fear of criticisms for holding unpopular opinions or fear
of humiliation for one’s comments.
iii. This privilege is known as the deliberative process privilege. This is to prevent the chilling of
deliberative communications.
iv. This privilege also exists in the executive and legislative department. Even court officials and
employees who are privy to the deliberations are covered by the exemption. They may
invoke “privileged information”.
v. While Rule 10 Section 2 covers only deliberation, the rule actually extends to documents and
other communications which are part of or are related to the deliberative process. This
includes documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations.
vi. The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel in fact provides that access shall be denied with
respect to drafts of decisions, rulings, orders or internal memoranda or internal reports.

TO QUALIFY UNDER THE PROTECTION OF DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE

1. The document must be both predecisional and deliberative.
2. A document is predecisional if they were made in the attempt to reach a final conclusion.
3. A document is deliberative if it reflects the give and take of the consultative process.
a. TEST if deliberative or not: Whether the disclosure of the information would discourage candid
discussion within the agency. If yes, then it is privileged.
4. Documents which are both predecisional and deliberative are protected and cannot be the subject of a
subpoena.
TWO OTHER GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OF ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS (I guess those which are not included in the
IRSC??)
1. Disqualification by reason of privilege communication under Rule 130.24 - A public officer cannot be
examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to communications made to him in official confidence,
when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
2. To ensure observance of this rule, the improper disclosure of confidential information is also criminally
punishable under Article 229 of the RPC, Section 3(k) of RA 3019 and Section 7 of the Code of Ethical
Standards for Public Official and Employees.
3. Thus under the law, the members of the Court may not be compelled to testify in the impeachment
proceedings against the Chief Justice or other members of the Court regarding information they acquired in
the performance of their official functions. This is a matter of judicial privilege.
4. In Senate v. Ermita, it was held that: the members of the Supreme Court are exempt from Congess’ power of
inquiry in aid of legislation.
5. Court officials and employees are likewise protected with respect to: result of raffle of cases, actions taken
by the court, deliberations of the Members of the Court and those covered by the privileged
communications.
6. However, external matters are not covered. These are matters not covered by their adjudicatory functions.

In any case, witness need not be summoned to testify on matters of public record. Under Rule 130.44:
Section 44. Entries in official records. - Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of
the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated.

The reasons for this rule are necessity (in order not to disrupt public business) and trustworthiness (presumption that
they will discharge their duties with fidelity and accuracy).

These records, however, may be presented and marked in evidence only where they are not excluded by reasons
of privilege and the other reasons discussed above.

SUMMARY OF THE RULES – NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE

1. Court actions – results of raffles included in the agenda of court sessions on acts done material to pending
cases, except when a party litigant requests for it
2. Court deliberations – on sessions and matters pending before the Court
3. Court records – which are predecisional and deliberative in nature
4. Confidential information – secured by justices, judges, court officials and employees in the course of their
official functions [Privileged Communication]
5. Records of cases that are still pending are privileged.
6. Exemption from compulsory processes of the other departments of highest official of each department by
reason of principle of comity or inter-departmental courtesy.
7. These privileges belong to the Supreme Court as an institution and not to any justice or judge in his individual
capacity.