Case 

Romulo L. Neri (petitioner) vs Senate Committee on

Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, Senate
Committee on Trade and Commerce and Senate Committee on
National Defense (respondents) (SEPT 4, 2008)
Topic  Section 28, Article II of Constitution (Full public Disclosure of all
transactions involving public interest)
Type of Case  Motion for Reconsideration
Facts  A.
Petitioner’s Argument Petitioner charges respondent committees with exaggerating and
distorting the decision of the court. He avers that there is nothing
in it that prohibits respondent committees from investigating the
NBN Project or asking him additional questions. The court merely
applied the rule on executive privilege to the facts of the case.
Respondent’s Respondent Committee’s MR are anchored with the following
Argument  grounds:
 Contrary to this Honorable Court’s Decision, there is no
doubt that the assailed orders were issued by the
respondent committees pursuant to the exercise of their
legislative power and not merely their oversight funtions.
 Contrary to this honorable court's decision, there can be no
presumption that the information ithwheld in the instant
case is privileged.
 Contrary to this honorable court's decision, there is no
factual or legal basis to hold that the communications
elicited by the subject three (3) questions are covered by
executive privilege considering that:
A. There is no showing that the matters for which executive
privilege is claimed constitute state Secrets.
B. Even if the tests adopted by this honorable court in the
decision is applied, there is no showing that the elements of
presidential communications privilege are present.
C. On the contrary, there is adequate showing of a compelling
need to justify the disclosure of the information sought.
D. To uphold the claim of executive privilege in the instant
case would seriously impair the respondents' performance of
their primary function to enact laws.
E. Finally, the constitutional right of the people to information,
and the constitutional policies on public accountability and
transparency outweigh the claim of executive privilege
Contrary to this honorable court's decision, respondents
did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the
assailed contempt order, considering that
A. There is no legitimate claim of executive privilege in the
instant case
B. Respondents did not violate the supposed requirements laid
down in senate v. Ermita.
 C. Respondents duly issued the contempt order in accordance
with their internal rules
D. Respondents did not violate the requirements under article
VI section 21 of the constitution requiring that its rules of
procedure be duly published, and were denied due process
when the court considered the osg's intervention on this
issue without giving respondents the opportunity to
comment
E. Respondents' issuance of the contempt order is not
arbitrary or precipitate
Lower Court Ruling 
Issue  -Whether or not there is a recognized presumptive presidential
communications privilege in our legal system
Ruling  Yes, there is a recognized presumptive presidential
communications privilege. The Court, in the earlier case of
Almonte v. Vasquez, affirmed that the presidential
communications privilege is fundamental to the operation of
government and inextricably rooted in the separation of
powers under the Constitution
Doctrine  The Court articulated in these cases that "there are certain types of
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 doctrine of executive privilege is thus premised on the fact

that certain information must, as a matter of necessity, be kept
confidential in pursuit of the public interest. The privilege being,
by definition, an exemption from the obligation to disclose
information, in this case to Congress, the necessity must be of
such high degree as to outweigh the public interest in enforcing
that obligation in a particular case

Decision  Respondent Committees’ Motion for Reconsideration dated April

8, 2008 is hereby DENIED