Neri v. Senate CAPO, et al G.R.

180643 September 4, 2008 FACTS The Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) entered into 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 (approx. P16 Billion). This was financed by the People's Republic of China. Respondent Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (CAPO), Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, and Senate Committee on National Defense and Security, initiated an investigation to respective personalities and cabinet officials in the NBN Project, of which petitioner Romulo Neri was included. The petitioner testified and mentioned that he was offered P200 Billion for his approval for the NBN Project. But when asked further to divulge what was discussed about the project, he refused to answer and invoked "executive privilege," especially with matters relating to the involvement of Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo: (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 then refused to appear in further hearings of the Committees. With this, the Committees issued an Order, citing him in contempt and ordering his arrest and detention at the Office of the Senate Sergeant-At-Arms. Neri petitioned to the Court for citiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the show cause Letter and contempt Order. His petition was granted and the in contempt Order of the respondents and the instruction for his arrest and detention were nullified. The respondent Committees filed for a motion for reconsideration regarding the decision. They persisted in knowing the petitioner's answers to the questions not answered regarding the matters which involved the President. ISSUE Can a cabinet member invoke executive privilege on matters discussed with the President before legislative investigations?

HELD No. The phrase "executive privilege" involves considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications. The privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution, and may be claimed by one executive official, the President. But in the case of Senate v. Ermita, it was the President herself, through Executive Secretary Ermita, who invoked executive privilege on a specific matter involving an executive agreement between the Philippines and China, which was the subject of the 3 questions propounded by petitioner Neri in the course of the Senate Committees' investigation. Ermita requested the Committees to dispense with Neri's testimony on the ground of executive privilege. Thus, petitioner, an executive official under the direct control and supervision of the Chief Executive, only acted by the order of his superior, hence cannot be held in contempt. The respondent Committees' Motion for Reconsideration was DENIED.

Pimentel G.R. March FACTS

v. 8,

Enrile 187714 2011

Sen. Villar and Sen. Lacson, each, delivered a privilege speech (on separate dates). Both of them suggested that Ethics Committee cannot take the floor with regard to accusations against Sen. Villar. More so, Sen. Lacson suggested, that since the Ethics Committee cannot act with fairness on Sen. Villar's case, it should be undertaken by the Senate, acting as a Committee of the Whole. The motion was approved with 10 members voting in favor, none against, and five abstentions. When the respondent Senate Committee of the Whole conducted its hearings, petitioners objected to theapplication of the Rules of the Ethics Committee to the Senate Committee of the Whole, out of which three amendments were adopted. Sen. Pimentel raised an issue that there is a need to publish the proposed amended Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole. But responded proceeded with the Preliminary Inquiry on PS Resolution 706. The preliminary conference was then scheduled. Petitioners contested the following: 1) transfer of complaint against Sen. Villar from

the Ethics Committee to the Senate Committee of the Whole is violative of Sen. Villar's constitutional right to equal protection; 2) the Rules adopted by the Senate Committee of the Whole for the investigation and complaint filed by Sen. Madrigal against Sen. Villar is violative of Sen. Villar's right to due process and of the majority quorum requirement of Art. VI, Sec. 16(2) of the Constitution; and 3) The Committee violated the due process clause of the Constitution when it refused to publish the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole in spite of its own provision which requires its effectivity upon publication. Respondents argue that the instant petition must be dismissed for being premature, pointing out that petitioners failed to observe the doctrine or primary jurisdiction or prior resort. It is within the power of the Congress to discipline its members for disorderly behavior. More to that, the internal rules of the Senate are not subject to judicial review in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. With regard to the publication of the Rules of Procedure, the Rules of the Ethics Committee have already been duly published and adopted, which allowed the adoption of the supplementary rules to govern adjudicatory hearings. ISSUE Should the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole be published to be effective? HELD Generally, no. The proceedings before the Senate Committee of the Whole affect only members of the Senate since the proceedings involve the Senate's exercise of it's disciplinary power over one of its members. Thus, the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole are internal to the Senate. The Constitution does not mandate internal rules of the House or Senate to be published because it only affects their members, unless such rules expressly provide for their publication before the rules can take effect. However, Rule 15 of the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole provides: "Sec. 81. EFFECTIVITY. These Rules shall be effective after publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. Hence, in this particular case, the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole must be published before the Rules could take effect. Thus, the petition was granted in part, with reference to the publication.