Neri v.

Senate, 564 SCRA 152

FACTS: On September 26, 2007, Neri appeared before the respondent committees and testified for about 11 hours on the matters concerning the National Broadband Project, a project awarded to a Chinese company ZTE. The Petitioner therein disclosed that when he was offered by Abalos a bribe of 200 million pesos to approve the project, he informed PGMA of the attempt and she instructed him not to accept the bribe. However when he was probed further on PGMAs and petitioners discussions relating to the NBN Project, petitioner refused to answer, invoking exec privilege. The questions that he refused to answer were: whether or not PGMA followed up the NBN Project; whether or not PGMA directed him to prioritize it; whether or not PGMA directed him to approve it. Hence, Subpoena Ad Testificandum to the petitioner was issued. The petitioner did not appear before the respondent committees upon orders of the President invoking exec privilege. He explained that the questions asked of him are covered by exec privilege. He was cited in contempt of respondent committees and an order for his arrest and detention until such time that he would appear and give his testimony. ISSUES OF THE CASE: WON respondent committee committed a violation against Sec. 21 or Article VI in the Constitution. Held: Respondents violated Sec. 21, Art. VI of the Philippine Constitution, requiring that the inquiry be in accordance with the duly published rules of procedure. This requires the Senate of every Congress to publish its rules of procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation because every Senate is distinct from the one before it or after it. Not having published its Rules of Procedure, the subject hearings in aid of legislation conducted by the 14th Senate are therefore procedurally infirm. The language of Sec. 21 Art. 6 of the Constitution requiring that the inquiry be conducted in accordance with the duly published rules of procedure is categorical. It should likewise be stressed that not all orders issued or proceedings conducted pursuant to the subject Rules are null and void. Only those that result in violation of the rights of witnesses should be considered null and void, considering that the rationale for the publication is to protect the rights of witnesses as expresses in Sec. 21 Art. 6 of the Constitution.