|
By William B. Depasupil, Reporter
Voting 9-6, the Supreme Court on
Tuesday granted a petition of Romulo Neri, the chairman of the
Commission on Higher Education, to invoke “executive privilege”
on his conversation with President Gloria Arroyo about the aborted
$330-million national broadband network project with China’s ZTE
Corp.
Chief Justice Reynato Puno,
however, dissented from the majority opinion.
The court’s spokesman, Jose
Midas Marquez, said that with the decision, the Senate could no
longer compel Neri to answer three specific questions on his
conversation with President Arroyo about the national-broadband
project or threaten him with arrest.
Senators had wanted Neri to
answer if President Arroyo followed up the broadband project with
Neri; if Neri was told by the President to make the project a
priority; and if she ordered him to go ahead and approve it after he
also told her about an alleged bribe offer by resigned Chairman
Benjamin Abalos Sr. of the Commission on Elections.
Malacañang said it defers to the
decision of the High Tribunal on the Neri petition.
“We respect the decision of the
Supreme Court. We hope that, looking forward, the Senate and the
executive can work out mutually acceptable rules on appearances in
Senate inquiries in aid of legislation, which will guarantee the
rights of resource persons and parties affected by congressional
hearings, as stipulated by the Constitution,” Press Secretary
Ignacio Bunye said in a statement.
Senate President Manuel Villar
Jr. and Senator Manuel Roxas 2nd expressed disappointment with the
ruling of the High Tribunal. They said, though, that they “
respect” the decision.
Villar called the ruling as
“unfortunate, a historical blot for a nation that cherishes tenets
of democracy, truth, and justice.”
According to Roxas, “the principle of executive privilege
should not be applied to conceal the truth about an anomalous public
transaction,” referring to the broadband deal.
Senate Majority Leader Francis
Pangilinan said he “disagrees” with the High Court decision on
the Neri petition. He announced that he will file a motion for
reconsideration.
The ruling on the petition of the
then Socioeconomic Planning secretary was promulgated by a
“divided court,” the tribunal’s spokesman admitted during a
press briefing. Still, Marquez said, Neri “can’t be cited for
contempt of court or contempt of the Senate nor the Senate can order
his arrest.”
The Chief Justice, in his
120-page dissenting opinion, said the Senate did not commit a grave
abuse of discretion when it issued the arrest order for Neri.
“Officials appearing in
legislative inquiries in representation of co-equal branches of
government carry with them not only the protective cover of their
individual rights, but also the shield of their
prerogatives—including executive privilege—flowing from the
power of the branch they represent,” Puno noted.
He said, “These powers of the
branches of government are independent, but they have been fashioned
to work interdependently. When there is abuse of power by any of the
branches, there is no victor, for a distortion of power works to the
detriment of the whole government, which is constitutionally
designed to function as an organic whole.”
The court en banc, Marquez said,
also voted 10-5 in ruling that the Senate “committed grave abuse
of discretion” when it imposed punitive sanctions against Neri as
the “Senate has no published rule” on sanctions that can be
imposed.
According to the court’s
spokesman, the justices who concurred with the ruling viewed that
the conversation between Neri and Mrs. Arroyo was confidential in
nature that pertains to some diplomatic concerns.
“They appear to be valid,”
Marquez said of the justices’ opinions.
The nine justices who voted in
favor of Neri’s petition were Renato Corona, Minita Chico-Nazario,
Presbitero Velasco, Antonio Nachura, Dante Tinga, Leonardo
Quisumbing, Ruben Reyes, Teresita de Castro, and newly-appointed
Arturo Brion. De Castro penned the majority ruling.
Those who also dissented were
Associate Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Alicia
Austria-Martinez, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Adolfo Azcuna, and
Antonio Carpio.
Marquez explained that although
Carpio was of the opinion that that the three questions are not
covered by executive privilege, the justice sided with the majority
view that there was grave abuse of discretion by the Senate because
of the absence of published rules. Thus, he said, the 10-5 vote.
“Some of the concurring
opinions went as far as saying that the questions can’t be
considered [being posed] in aid of legislation,” Marquez added.
Despite the ruling, the court’s
spokesman pointed out, the senators may still continue with its
investigation of the allegedly corruption-tainted broadband deal and
ask Neri to appear before them. But, Marquez said, they could not
compel Neri to answer the three questions that the High Tribunal
said are covered by executive privilege.
Neri, he added, even has the
choice to answer the three questions in an executive session if he
wants to or is given the go-signal by his lawyer or his principal.
Official copies of the 40-page
decision were not ready yet, according to Marquez, because of some
late revisions on the draft copies.
At the Office of the Ombudsman, a
complaint seeking to compel Mrs. Arroyo to testify on the cancelled
national broadband project was junked also on Tuesday.
Prosecutors said the President
cannot be subpoenaed in view of her immunity from suit.
The dismissal of the petition
prompted a complainant, lawyer Harry Roque, to walk out. He said he
will bring his case to the Supreme Court. The walkout caused
suspension of the hearing for a few minutes.
Another complainant, Ernesto
Francisco, also a lawyer, said the panel looking into the petition
should be disbanded and replaced with a new one.
 --With
Jomar Canlas
|
