FORMER socioeconomic planning secretary Romulo Neri scored a legal victory when the Supreme Court said the Senate could not compel him to answer three questions that it found to be covered by executive privilege. But transparency advocates say the public may end up the loser should that decision become final.
A commentary by lawyer Nepomuceno Malaluan argues that the March 25, 2008 ruling makes the presidential communications privilege practically absolute, thereby denying the public access to information that may have profound impact on governance and legislation, among other things. Analyzing how the majority of the justices arrived at their conclusion, he also says it seems there were some facts presented in the case that were not considered or evaluated, especially those pertaining to the Senate’s need for the answers to help it craft legislation.
Malaluan questions as well the Court’s determination that the questions asked of Neri lean more toward the exercise of the legislative oversight function. He notes, “Unfortunately, while there may be instances when an inquiry is undertaken solely in oversight, more often the oversight character of an inquiry is inextricable from a legislative purpose.”
“It is by being factually informed of the actual workings or administration of existing laws, or of the ways by which wrongdoing such as corruption is committed, that intelligent legislation may be had, whether through the amendment of existing laws or the enactment of new ones,” Malaluan writes. “It is because of the reality of this inter-linkage that the Court itself, in Senate v. Ermita, recognized the validity of facilitating oversight through compulsory process when such oversight is performed in pursuit of legislation.”
We hope the piece will help enlighten readers on the wider implications of the Supreme Court decision on the Neri case. Read on at pcij.org.