Neri v. Senate G.R. No.

180643
Facts:
On September 26, 2007, petitioner appeared before respondent Committees and
testified for about eleven (11) hours on matters concerning the National Broadband
Project (the "NBN Project"), a project awarded by the Department of Transportation and
Communications ("DOTC") to Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment ("ZTE").
Petitioner disclosed that then Commission on Elections ("COMELEC") Chairman
Benjamin Abalos offered him P200 Million in exchange for his approval of the NBN
Project. He further narrated that he informed President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
("President Arroyo") of the bribery attempt and that she instructed him not to accept the
bribe. However, when probed further on President Arroyo and petitioners discussions
relating to the NBN Project, petitioner refused to answer, invoking "executive privilege."
To be specific, petitioner refused to answer questions on: (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 it.
Respondent Committees persisted in knowing petitioners answers to these three
questions by requiring him to appear and testify once more on November 20, 2007. On
November 15, 2007, Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita wrote to respondent
Committees and requested them to dispense with petitioners testimony on the ground
of executive privilege.
Issue:
W. O. N. executive privilege violates Art. III, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution.
Held:
No, invoking executive privilege does not violate Art. III, Sec. 7. The Supreme Court
explained that there is a recognized public interest in the confidentiality of such
information is a recognized principle in other democratic States. To put it simply, the
right to information is not an absolute right. Restriction to such rights include: (1)
national security matters, (2) trade secrets and banking transactions, (3) criminal
matters, and (4) other confidential information. National security matters include state
secrets regarding military and diplomatic matters, as well as information on intergovernment exchanges prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements. It

was further held that even where there is no need to protect such state secrets, they
must be "examined in strict confidence and given scrupulous protection."
Incidentally, the right primarily involved here is the right of respondent Committees to
obtain information allegedly in aid of legislation, not the peoples right to public
information. This is the reason why we stressed in the assailed Decision the distinction
between these two rights. As laid down in Senate v. Ermita, "the demand of a citizen for
the production of documents pursuant to his right to information does not have the same
obligatory force as a subpoena duces tecum issued by Congress" and "neither does the
right to information grant a citizen the power to exact testimony from government
officials." As pointed out, these rights belong to Congress, not to the individual citizen. It
is worth mentioning at this juncture that the parties here are respondent Committees
and petitioner Neri and that there was no prior request for information on the part of any
individual citizen. This Court will not be swayed by attempts to blur the distinctions
between the Legislature's right to information in a legitimate legislative inquiry and the
public's right to information.