|
THE
Senate on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to
reverse its March 25 ruling upholding the legality of
President Arroyo’s invocation of executive privilege to
prevent former National Economic and Development
Authority (Neda) chairman Romulo Neri from divulging
details of their conversation with regard to the aborted
$329-million national broadband network project of the
government with China’s ZTE Co.
In a
105-page motion for reconsideration, the Senate
Committees on Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations (blue ribbon), Trade and Commerce and
National Defense and Security stressed that its decision
favoring Neri will weaken the doctrine of
check-and-balance among the three departments of the
governments.
The
Senate also asked the Court to take a second look at the
Neri case and schedule another oral argument, if
necessary, wherein it will require the presence of Neri
in the proceedings and hold a closed-door meeting on the
matter.
In
upholding the claim of executive privilege, the Senate
said the SC majority opinion effectively rendered the
Senate and its committees inutile to inquire into
actions of the President which are clearly relevant to
issues of national concern and which are necessary to
craft the necessary legislation to address issues.
“If not
corrected, the Neri decision would have effectively
turned executive privilege into a refuge for scoundrels,
for ‘secrecy’ is invoked amid accusation of corruption,
it is nothing but a tool for a criminal cover-up. If
allowed to become final, it could result in a democracy
of kept secrets buttressed by the Neri jurisprudence,”
the petitioners said.
Senate
President Manny Villar said Senate lawyers, in filing a
motion for reconsideration, asked the Supreme Court (SC)
to “take a second circumspect look” at the Neri
decision.
Villar
himself urged the nine Justices who voted with the
majority decision to “show that the High Court remains a
fair court; that like the blindfolded Lady of Justice [Justitia],
the SC represents justice, fair justice to all and
unfairness to none.”
The
Senate President pointed to an urgent need for an
independent SC in a democratic country like the
Philippines
whose decisions form part of laws of the land.
“Even if
it seems that the Senate is the ‘last man standing’ in a
pile of institutions falling down like dominoes, we are
here to show that there remains an institution that is
prepared and ready to defend the ideals of the
Constitution,” said Villar, adding that the earlier SC
decision in the Neri vs Senate case must be reconsidered
as “it is a debilitating blow to the very heart of the
most fundamental mechanism to have a ‘workable
government’—the system of checks and balances.”
He added
that if the SC’s initial ruling is not corrected, it
would have turned executive privilege into a license to
commit crime.
Villar
said the justices should “seriously reconsider the Neri
decision by looking at the way it will work to the
detriment of the campaign against graft and corruption
and the principle of transparency and accountability.”
The
Senate stressed that the Court’s decision, penned by
Associate Justice Teresita de Castro and concurred in by
eight other associate justices, “is a dangerous and
chilling decision.”
It added
that it allows the Executive branch to be less
transparent and weakens government accountability.
The
petitioners added that the SC’s decision on Neri’s case
will give an impression that the Court has lost its
independence.
“The
Neri decision did not, by any stretch of one’s
imagination, contribute to the fight against graft and
corruption….In the face of a pattern of concealment by
executive officials as apparent in many legislative
investigations, the dangers of abuse of executive
privilege by the Executive branch have significantly
increased,” the Senate noted.
The
Senate stressed that contrary to the Court’s ruling,
there is no legal basis to hold that the communications
elicited by the subject three questions are covered by
executive privilege since there is no showing that the
matters for which executive privilege is claimed to
constitute state secrets.
Furthermore, the Senate insisted that there is no proof
that elements of presidential communication privilege
are present.
It
pointed out that the decision would seriously impair the
Senate’s performance of their primary function to enact
laws.
The
Court, according to the Senate, should have given more
weight to the constitutional right of the people to
information and the constitutional policies on public
accountability and transparency over the claim of
executive privilege.
Likewise, it stressed that it did not commit grave abuse
of discretion in issuing a contempt order considering
that it did not violate the constitutional provision
requiring that its rules of procedure governing
inquiries in aid of legislation be duly published.
The
petitioner said its rules of procedure have been duly
published in two newspapers of general circulation in
1995. Since its adoption and publication in 1995 the
rules have not been substantially amended nor repealed.
“Thus,
not having been amended, modified or repealed since
1995, the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid
of Legislation remain in force and effect,” the Senate
said.
In its
March 25 ruling, the Court voting 9-5, affirmed the
legality of President Arroyo’s invocation of executive
privilege to prevent Neri from answering the three
questions propounded by the members of the respondent
Senate committees.
At the
same time, the SC voting 10-5 declared that the Senate
abused its authority when it cited Neri for contempt and
subsequently ordered his arrest.
It held
that the Senate committees have no basis to order Neri’s
arrest due to their failure to come up with published
rules governing inquiries in aid of legislation.
Under
the Constitution, executive privilege is a recognized
right of the President to withhold from Congress, the
courts and the public any information regarded as vital
to the national interest. The information could include
conversations and correspondence between the President
and her officials pertaining to the military, diplomatic
and other national security issues.
The
three questions in which Neri manifested that President
Arroyo had invoked executive privilege in his behalf
were “1) Whether the President followed up the NBN
project? 2) Were you dictated to prioritize the ZTE? and
3) Whether the President said to go ahead and approve
the project after being told about the alleged bribe.”
The
Court gave weight to the claim of the Executive branch
that disclosure of the withheld information may impair
diplomatic and economic relations with the People’s
Republic of China. |
