Marcos VS Manglapus

G.R. No. 88211

Facts:

In its decision dated September 15,1989, the Court dismissed the petition, after finding that the
President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of
former President Marcos and his family at the present time and under present circumstances
pose a threat to national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines.

On October 2, 1989, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by petitioners, raising the following
major arguments:

1. to bar former President Marcos and his family from returning to the Philippines is to deny
them not only the inherent right of citizens to return to their country of birth but also the
protection of the Constitution and all of the rights guaranteed to Filipinos under the Constitution;

2. the President has no power to bar a Filipino from his own country; if she has, she had
exercised it arbitrarily; and

3. there is no basis for barring the return of the family of former President Marcos. Thus,
petitioners prayed that the Court reconsider its decision, order respondents to issue the
necessary travel documents to enable Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., Irene
M. Araneta, Imee M. Manotoc, Tommy Manotoc and Gregorio Araneta to return to the
Philippines, and enjoin respondents from implementing President Aquino's decision to bar the
return of the remains of Mr. Marcos, and the other petitioners, to the Philippines.

Issue:

Right of the then President Aquino to bar the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines after the
death of Ferdinand Marcos Sr.

Ruling:

We deny the motion for reconsideration.

1. It must be emphasized that as in all motions for reconsideration, the burden is upon the
movants, petitioner herein, to show that there are compelling reasons to reconsider the decision
of the Court.

2. After a thorough consideration of the matters raised in the motion for reconsideration, the
Court is of the view that no compelling reasons have been established by petitioners to warrant
a reconsideration of the Court's decision.

The death of Mr. Marcos, although it may be viewed as a supervening event, has not changed
the factual scenario under which the Court's decision was rendered. The threats to the
government, to which the return of the Marcoses has been viewed to provide a catalytic effect,
have not been shown to have ceased. On the contrary, instead of erasing fears as to the
destabilization that will be caused by the return of the Marcoses, Mrs. Marcos reinforced the
basis for the decision to bar their return when she called President Aquino "illegal," claiming that
it is Mr. Marcos, not Mrs. Aquino, who is the "legal" President of the Philippines, and declared
that the matter "should be brought to all the courts of the world."

3. Contrary to petitioners' view, it cannot be denied that the President, upon whom executive
power is vested, has unstated residual powers which are implied from the grant of executive
power and which are necessary for her to comply with her duties under the Constitution. The
powers of the President are not limited to what are expressly enumerated in the article on the
Executive Department and in scattered provisions of the Constitution. This is so,
notwithstanding the avowed intent of the members of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 to
limit the powers of the President as a reaction to the abuses under the regime of Mr. Marcos, for
the result was a limitation of specific power of the President, particularly those relating to the
commander-in-chief clause, but not a diminution of the general grant of executive power.

4. Among the duties of the President under the Constitution, in compliance with his (or her) oath
of office, is to protect and promote the interest and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the
return of the Marcoses and subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the present time and
under present circumstances is in compliance with this bounden duty.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit."

Neri VS Senate Committee

G. R. No. 180643

Facts:

On April 21, 2007, the Department of Transportation and Communication entered into a contract
with Zhing Xing Telecommunications Equipment for the supply of equipment and services for
the National Broadband Network project in the amount of P16 Billion Pesos. A project to be
financed by the People’s Republic of China. In connection with this NBN Project, various
Resolutions were introduced in the Senate, at the same time, the investigation was claimed to
be relevant to the consideration of pending bills in the Senate.

Respondent Committees initiated the investigation by sending invitations to certain personalities

and cabinet officials involved in the NBN Project.  Petitioner was among those invited.  He was
summoned to appear and testify on September 18, 20, and 26 and October 25, 2007.  
However, he attended only the September 26 hearing, claiming he was “out of town” during the
other dates.
 
In the September 18, 2007 hearing, businessman Jose de Venecia III testified that several high
executive officials and power brokers were using their influence to push the approval of the NBN
Project by the NEDA.  It appeared that the Project was initially approved as a Build-Operate-
Transfer (BOT) project but, on March 29, 2007, the NEDA acquiesced to convert it into a
government-to-government project, to be financed through a loan from the Chinese
Government.
 
On September 26, 2007, petitioner testified before respondent Committees for eleven (11)
hours.  He disclosed that then Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Chairman Benjamin
Abalos offered him P200 Million 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, petitioner refused to answer, invoking “executive privilege”.

Unrelenting, respondent Committees issued a Subpoena to petitioner, requiring him to appear

and testify on November 20, 2007. However, Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita requested
respondent Committees to dispense with petitioner’s testimony on the ground of executive
privilege. Secretary Neri sought guidance on the possible invocation of executive privilege on
the following questions, to wit:
 
a) Whether the President followed up the (NBN) project?
b) Were you dictated to prioritize the ZTE?
c) Whether the President said to go ahead and approve the project after being told about the
alleged bribe?

Considering that Sec. Neri has been lengthily interrogated on the subject wherein he has
answered all questions propounded to him except the foregoing questions involving executive
privilege, we therefore request that his testimony on 20 November 2007 on the ZTE/NBN
project be dispensed with.

Respondent Committees issued the Order dated January 30, 2008, citing him in contempt of
respondent Committees and ordering his arrest and detention at the Office of the Senate
Sergeant-At-Arms until such time that he would appear and give his testimony. On the same
date, petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the above Order. In view of respondent
Committees’ issuance of the contempt Order,  petitioner  filed seeking to restrain the
implementation of the said contempt Order. 

Issue:

First, are the communications elicited by the subject three (3) questions covered by executive
privilege?; And second, did respondent Committees commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing
the contempt Order?

Ruling:

The Communications Elicited by the Three (3) Questions are Covered by Executive Privilege.
The information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic
relations with the People’s Republic of China. Given the confidential nature in which these
information were conveyed to the President, he cannot provide the Committee any further
details of these conversations, without disclosing the very thing the privilege is designed to
protect. Respondent committees committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the contempt
order. It must be reiterated that when respondent Committees issued the show cause Letter
dated November 22, 2007, petitioner replied immediately,  manifesting that it was not his
intention to ignore the Senate hearing  and that he thought the only remaining questions were
the three (3) questions he claimed to be covered by executive privilege.