Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 640 views

    Neri Vs Senate Commission

    Uploaded by

    Dorothy Joy Cay-an
    Neri, the head of NEDA, was summoned to testify before the Senate about his involvement in the National Broadband Network project between the Philippines and China. During questioning, Neri refused to answer questions about his communications with President Arroyo regarding the project, invoking executive privilege. The Senate committee then held Neri in contempt. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Neri's invocation of executive privilege was valid and the communications he refused to disclose were covered by executive privilege. The Court also found that the Senate committee violated its own rules by not publishing its rules of procedure for inquiries.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Neri Vs Senate Commission

    Uploaded by

    Dorothy Joy Cay-an
    640 views2 pages
    Neri, the head of NEDA, was summoned to testify before the Senate about his involvement in the National Broadband Network project between the Philippines and China. During questioning, Neri refused to answer questions about his communications with President Arroyo regarding the project, invoking executive privilege. The Senate committee then held Neri in contempt. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Neri's invocation of executive privilege was valid and the communications he refused to disclose were covered by executive privilege. The Court also found that the Senate committee violated its own rules by not publishing its rules of procedure for inquiries.

    Original Description:

    Neri vs Senate Commission

    Original Title

    Neri vs Senate Commission

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Neri, the head of NEDA, was summoned to testify before the Senate about his involvement in the National Broadband Network project between the Philippines and China. During questioning, Neri refused to answer questions about his communications with President Arroyo regarding the project, invoking executive privilege. The Senate committee then held Neri in contempt. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Neri's invocation of executive privilege was valid and the communications he refused to disclose were covered by executive privilege. The Court also found that the Senate committee violated its own rules by not publishing its rules of procedure for inquiries.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    640 views2 pages

    Neri Vs Senate Commission

    Uploaded by

    Dorothy Joy Cay-an
    Neri, the head of NEDA, was summoned to testify before the Senate about his involvement in the National Broadband Network project between the Philippines and China. During questioning, Neri refused to answer questions about his communications with President Arroyo regarding the project, invoking executive privilege. The Senate committee then held Neri in contempt. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Neri's invocation of executive privilege was valid and the communications he refused to disclose were covered by executive privilege. The Court also found that the Senate committee violated its own rules by not publishing its rules of procedure for inquiries.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Neri vs.

    Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations


    Facts:
    In April April 2007, DOTC entered into a 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 $329,481,290.00 (approximately P16 Billion Pesos). The Project was to be financed by the
    Peoples Republic of China. The Senate passed various resolutions relative to the NBN deal. On the other
    hand, Joe De Venecia issued a statement that several high executive officials and power brokers were
    using their influence to push the approval of the NBN Project by the NEDA.
    Neri, the head of NEDA, was then invited to testify before the Senate Blue Ribbon. He appeared in one
    hearing wherein he was interrogated for 11 hrs and during which he admitted that Abalos of COMELEC
    tried to bribe him with P200M in exchange for his approval of the NBN project. He further narrated that
    he informed President Arroyo about the bribery attempt and that she instructed him not to accept the
    bribe. However, when probed further on what they discussed about the NBN Project, Neri refused to
    answer, invoking executive privilege. In particular, he refused to answer the 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. He later refused to attend the other hearings and
    Ermita sent a letter to the SBRC averring that the communications between GMA and Neri is privileged
    and that the jurisprudence laid down in Senate vs Ermita be applied. The SBRC cited Neri for contempt.
    ISSUES:
    Whether Neri can invoke executive privilege;
    Whether the invocation of executive privilege violate Sec. 28, Art. II and Sec. 7, Art. III; and
    Whether the Committees gravely abused their discretion by holding Neri in contempt.
    RULING:
    The communications elicited by the three questions are covered by executive privilege. Despite the
    revocation of E.O. 464, there is a recognized claim of executive privilege. The privilege is said to be a
    necessary guarantee of presidential advisors to provide the President and those who assist him with
    freedom to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a
    way many would be unwilling to express except privately. Furthermore, the claim was properly
    invoked by the letter provided by Executive Secretary Ermita stating the precise and certain reason that
    the said information may impair the countrys diplomatic as well as economic relations with the
    Republic of China.
    The petitioner was able to appear in at least one of the days where he was summoned and expressly
    manifested his willingness to answer more questions from the Senators, with the exception only of
    those covered by his claim of executive privilege. The right to public information and full public
    disclosure of transactions, like any other right, is subject to limitation. These include those that are
    classified by the body of jurisprudence as highly confidential. The information subject to this case
    belongs to such kind.
    The Committees violated Sec. 21, Art. VI of the Constitution for having failed to publish its Rules of
    Procedure. Inquiries are required to be in accordance with the duly published rules of procedure.
    Without these, the aid of legislation are procedurally infirm

    You might also like