Palace says SC decision keeps Senate within its 'boundary'

MANILA, Philippines - Press Secretary Jesus Dureza on Thursday hailed the Supreme Court decision upholding the use of executive privilege saying that it reaffirms the principle of separation of powers among the different branches of government. At the same time, he pointed out that the decision keeps the Senate within its "boundary." "The Supreme Court ruling upholding once again the right of a Cabinet official to invoke executive privilege reaffirms the time-honored principle of separation of powers of the executive from the legislative and hence keeps the Senate within its own constitutional boundary without intruding into a co-equal branch of government," Dureza said. "Any intrusion into the other, as what the Senate was poised to do, should as the Supreme Court has just done, be stricken down. Straying beyond such limits is anathema to good public order. And staying within constitutional bounds is as good a rule to the Palace as it is to the Senate. We must perforce submit to this ruling," he added. Erroneous, terrible, unreasonable The Supreme Court, voting 9-6 on Thursday, rejected the motion for reconsideration sought by the Senate and upheld the invocation of executive privilege by Neri when he evaded questions on the $329.48-million government's national broadband deal with Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) Corp. The decision shocked some senators who described the ruling as "erroneous," "terrible," and "unreasonable." However, the senators said they would respect the decision and vowed to continue their pursuit of the truth in relation to the deal. "I believe that this is an erroneous ruling that will henceforth be used as a subterfuge of the corrupt and those who want to escape accountability while holding public office, this is a dark day indeed for constitutionalists and our legal system,"Sen Francis Escudero said. In another interview, Senator Aquilino Pimentel described it as a "terrible, unreasonable decision." For his part, Senator Francis Pangilinan said that he was "saddened" by the decision but added that the senators would have to respect the ruling. "While we will have to recognize and respect the ruling, we are nevertheless saddened that the SC has opted to take the side of Malacanang in this controversy but nevertheless, it is a sad day for greater transparency and accountability,"he said. Senator Manuel Roxas II echoed Pangilinan in saying that the Senate would respect the decision. However, he said that the Senate still believes that the privilege should only cover issues that threaten “national security, diplomatic relations, and peace and order." “Executive privilege should not apply to projects such as the (ZTE deal), or other matters where graft and corruption are alleged," Roxas said. The ZTE deal The controversy over the deal started on Aug. 27, 2007 when Rep. Carlos Padilla revealed that Commission on Elections chairman Benjamin Abalos met with Chinese officials in an apparent bid to broker the deal. The allegation was immediately denied by Abalos the next day. On September, 2007, Sen. Aquilino Pimentel filed a resolution calling for a probe. This was followed by an affidavit issued by Joey de Venecia who said that he witnessed Abalos who brokered the deal. During the Senate investigation, the younger de Venecia - who was also gunning for the NBN deal - linked the Palace to the anomaly when he testified that he was told by First Gentleman Mike Arroyo to "back off" from the deal. The next month, the Senate summoned the then president of the Philippine Forest Corp Rodolfo Noel Lozada who then went to Hong Kong in a bid to evade the Senate. When Lozada returned to the country, he was met a the airport by policemen who brought him to several places before he was presented to a lawyer. There, Lozada signed an affidavit saying that he was not abducted by the policemen. Lozada later testified at the Senate detailing the alleged involvement of certain public officials in the multi-million-dollar deal. Neri was also summoned to the Senate where he testified that Abalos - who had since then resigned as Commission on Elections chairman - had offered him P200 million in exchange for an endorsement of the NBN deal. Neri then clammed up when pressed for details by senators. He then invoked executive privilege. Senate goes to SC In a bid to force Neri to speak out, the Senate asked the Supreme Court for an interpretation of the law but on March 25, the court sustained the principle of executive privilege over Congress’ right to information. In that decision, the court also voted 9 to 6 as it sustained Neri’s defense that the Senate cannot force him to answer questions covered by executive privilege. On Thursday, the SC rejected the Senate motion for reconsideration and upheld the executive privilege. Radio dzBB's Teresa Tavares reported that the high court, again voting 9-6, upheld the principle of "presumptive presidential communications privilege" while chiding the Senate for its "grave abuse of discretion" when it declared Neri in contempt. "Merong presumption of presidential communications privilege ... In this particular case ... hindi pinakita ang tatlong katanungan na sinabi natin na tinatanong kay Sec. Neri, di pinakita kahalagahan noon kaya ang presumption on presidential communications privilege will stay," SC spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said. ("There is a presumption of presidential communications privilege. In this particular case the Senate failed to prove why the three questions asked of Neri should take precedence over presidential communications privilege, so it will stay.") The decision The high court on Thursday stood pat its March 25 decision upholding the validity of President Arroyo's invocation of executive privilege. The high court, in its March 25 decision, had said Neri cannot be cited for contempt or can be arrested due to his refusal to appear before the Senate hearing on NBN-ZTE. The Court also affirmed the validity of the presidential communications privilege invoked by Neri. It also held that the respondent 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. On Thursday - in a 48-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro - the SC voted 9-6 dismissing the motion for reconsideration filed by the Senate committees on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, Trade and Commerce, and National Defense and Security on whether the President correctly invoked privileged communication on three questions asked by the Senators. The three questions were (1) whether or not President Arroyo followed up the NBN project, (2) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it, and (c) whether or not she directed him to approve it despite knowledge of the alleged bribery. The Court junked the argument of the Senate that it disregarded the constitutional provisions on government transparency, accountability and disclosure of information when it upheld the legality of Neri's invocation of executive privilege. "Considering that the information sought through the three questions subject of this petition involves the President's dealing with a foreign nation, with more reason, this Court is wary of approving the view that Congress may peremptorily inquire into not only official, documented acts of the President but even her confidential and informal discussions with her close advisors on the pretext that said questions serve some vague legislative need," the high court ruled. In upholding executive privilege with respect to the three questions, the SC said it did not in anyway curb the public's right to information or undermined the importance of public accountability and transparency. It also said that the right to information is not an absolute right. In fact, the SC said, its ruling does not stop the Senate from continuing with its investigation into the NBN-ZTE project but merely excludes from the scope its investigation the three questions that elicit answers covered by executive privilege. The SC further said that the right involved in the case is not the right of the people to public information but the right of the respondent committees to obtain information for the purpose of legislation. The SC further observed that the thrust of the three questions is to trace the alleged bribery surrounding the NBN project to the Office of the President, which is not among the functions of the Senate. "No matter how noble the intentions of respondent committees are, they cannot assume the power reposed upon our prosecutorial bodies and courts. The determination of who is/are liable for a crime of illegal activity, the investigation of the role played by each official, the determination of who should behaled to court for prosecution and the task of coming up with conclusions and findings of facts regarding anomalies, especially the determination of criminal guilty, are not functions of the Senate," the SC said. The Office of the Ombudsman, according to the SC, is the proper body to determine whether or not the allegations of anomaly are true and who should be held liable therefore. Concurring with the majority decision were Associate Justices, Leonardo Quisumbing, Renato Corona, Arturo Brion, Dante Tinga, Presbitero Velasco, Jr. Minita Chico-Nazario, Antonio Eduardo Nachura and Ruben Reyes. Dissenting were Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Associate Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Antonio Carpio, Adolfo Azcuna and Conchita Carpio-Morales. In their motion for reconsideration, the Senate committees alleged there is a recognized presumptive presidential communications privilege "that inclines heavily against the executive secrecy and in favor of disclosure." - GMANews.TV