TITLE: ROMULO L. NERI, petitioner, vs.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC

OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATIONS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND COMMERCE, AND
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY, respondents
G.R. NO. 180643 DATE: 25 Mar 2008
PONENTE: J. Leonardo-De Castro TOPIC:
FACTS OF THE CASE:
On April 21, 2007, the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) entered into a contract
with Zhing Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) for the supply of equipment and services for the
National Broadband Network (NBN) Project in the amount of U.S. $329,481,290 (approximately P16
Billion Pesos). The Project was to be financed by the People's Republic of China (PRC).

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, who acquiesced to convert it into a
government-to-government project to be financed through a loan from the Chinese Government.

Petitioner testified on September 26 where he disclosed that then COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos
offered him P200 Million in exchange for his approval of the NBN Project. He informed then Pres. Arroyo
about the bribery attempt and that she instructed him to not accept the bribe. However, when he probed
further on what they discussed about the NBN Project, petitioner refused to answer, invoking executive
“privilege”. In particular, he refused to answer the questions on (a) whether or not Pres. 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.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the communications elicited by the subject three (3) questions are covered by executive
privilege.
HOLDING
YES. Executive privilege is not a personal privilege, but one that adheres to the Office of the President. It
exists to protect public interest, not to benefit a particular public official. Its purpose, among others, is to
assure that the nation will receive the benefit of candid, objective and untrammeled communication and
exchange of information between the President and his/her advisers in the process of shaping or forming
policies and arriving at decisions in the exercise of the functions of the Presidency under the Constitution.
The confidentiality of the president's conversations and correspondence is not unique. It is akin to the
confidentiality of judicial deliberations. It possesses the same value as the right to privacy of all citizens
and more, because it is dictated by public interest and the constitutionally ordained separation of
governmental powers.
The Court articulated in these cases that "there are certain types of information which the
government may withhold from the public," that there is a "governmental privilege against public
disclosure with respect to state secrets regarding military, diplomatic and other national security matters";
and that "the right to information does not extend to matters recognized as 'privileged information' under
the separation of powers, by which the Court meant Presidential conversations, correspondences, and
discussions in closed-door Cabinet meetings".
notes, if any: