NERI vs.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

G.R. No. 180643 March 25, 2008
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Facts:

Petitioner appeared before respondent Committees and testified concerning the National Broadband
Project, a project awarded by the Department of Transportation and Communications to Zhong Xing
Telecommunications Equipment. He further narrated that he informed President Arroyo of the bribery
attempt executed by Commission on Elections Chairman Benjamin Abalos in exchange for his approval of
the NBN Project but the President instructed him not to accept the bribe. However, when probed further
on President Arroyo and petitioner’s discussions relating to the NBN Project, petitioner refused to answer,
invoking "executive privilege."

Issue:

Whether or not the “executive privilege” invoked by the respondent is unconstitutional

Ruling:

No. The “executive privilege” privilege invoked by the respondent is constitutional.

The three (3) questions “fall under conversation and correspondence between the President and
public officials” necessary in “her executive and policy decisionmaking process” and, that “the
information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the
People’s Republic of China.” Simply put, the bases are presidential communications privilege and
executive privilege on matters relating to diplomacy or foreign relations. Indeed, the communications
elicited by the three (3) questions are covered by the presidential communications privilege. First,
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. Second, the communications are
“received” by a close advisor of the President. Under the “operational proximity” test, Neri can be
considered a close advisor, being a member of Pres. GMA’s cabinet. And third, 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.

While this Court finds laudable the respondent Committees’ well-intentioned efforts to ferret out
corruption, even in the highest echelons of government, such lofty intentions do not validate or
accord to Congress powers denied to it by the Constitution and granted instead to the other
branches of government.