EN BANC
[G.R. No. 180030. June 10, 2014.]
SEN. MANUEL A. ROXAS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND COMMERCE, AND SEN. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, petitioners, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO S. ERMITA AND NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DIRECTOR-GENERAL AUGUSTO B. SANTOS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated June 10, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 180030 — SEN. MANUEL A. ROXAS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND COMMERCE, AND SEN. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, Petitioners v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO S. ERMITA AND NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DIRECTOR-GENERAL AUGUSTO B. SANTOS, Respondents.
On April 21, 2007, the Department of Transportation and Communication, through Secretary Leandro Mendoza, and Zhing Xing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation (ZTE), through Yu Yong, its Vice President, executed and signed in Boao, China, the "Contract for the Supply of Equipment and Services for the National Broadband Network Project" worth US$329,481,290.00 (approximately P16 billion). The signing of the contract, which has become known as the National Broadband Network-ZTE Corporation (or NBN-ZTE) deal, was witnessed by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and would have been financed through a loan from the People's Republic of China through the Export-Import Bank of China. The National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) had approved the NBN-ZTE deal on March 29, 2007. 1
The NBN-ZTE deal became controversial after issues of corruption involving high-ranking government officials in the Executive surfaced. On its part, the business sector criticized the deal as another "white elephant," decrying that there was no sound basis for the project. 2
The controversy led to inquiries and investigations by the Senate, in aid of legislation, upon the initiatives of various Senators, as follows:
1. Senate Resolution No. 127 initiated by Sen. Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. directing the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and the Committee on Trade and Industry to investigate, in aid of legislation, the circumstances that led to the approval of the NBN-ZTE deal; to make recommendations for possible filing of cases in court, and to plug loopholes in the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) law and other pertinent legislations.
2. Senate Resolution No. 129 initiated by Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson directing the Committee on National Defense to inquire into, in aid of legislation, the national security implications of awarding the deal to a Chinese corporation, with the end in view of providing remedial legislation that would protect the national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity.
3. Privilege speech of Sen. Lacson entitled Legacy of Corruption.
4. Senate Resolution No. 136 initiated by Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago directing the proper Senate Committee to conduct, in aid of legislation, an inquiry on the legal and economic justification of the national broadband network.
5. Privilege speech of Sen. Santiago entitled International Agreements in Constitutional Law: The Suspended RP-China (ZTE) Loan Agreement.
6. Senate Resolution No. 144 by Sen. Manuel A. Roxas to urge the President to cancel the NBN-ZTE contract.
The investigations and inquiries would be in connection with three pending Senate Bills, namely: IcHAaS
1. SB No. 1793 — to subject treaties, international or executive agreements involving funding in the procurement of infrastructure projects, goods, and consulting services to Philippine procurement laws;
2. SB No. 1794 — to impose safeguards in contracting of loans classified as official development assistance; and
3. SB No. 1317 — to mandate concurrence to international and executive agreements. 3
In the course of the investigations and inquiries, the relevant Senate Committees summoned members of the Cabinet either to testify or to bring documents during the hearings. Among those summoned were former NEDA Director-General Romulo L. Neri, and incumbent NEDA Director-General Augusto B. Santos.
On September 26, 2007, the Senate, by letter, requested Director-General Santos to submit the transcripts of the minutes of the NEDA-ICC Meetings on the deliberations on the NBN-ZTE project. 4 But in his response dated October 3, 2007, Director-General Santos refused the request mainly on the ground that the documents subject of the request, being upon the discussions held in the closed-door cabinet and NEDA meetings, were covered by the mantle of executive privilege of the President. 5
Given such response from Director-General Santos, the Senate issued on October 3, 2007 a subpoena duces tecum requiring Director-General Santos to submit the following documents, to wit:
a) Copies of the minutes of NEDA-ICC meetings relative to the NBN project;
b) Outline of events of the NBN project;
c) Timeline of Projects from 2005 to 2007;
d) Historical Events re NBN-ZTE Project from ICC, Cabinet Committee to NEDA approval; and
e) Track Record of the Government which has economic benefits — MRT, LRT. 6
Director-General Santos refused to comply with the subpoena duces tecum. In his letter dated October 24, 2007, he insisted that the minutes were part of the internal deliberations of the Executive by which government decisions were made or policies formulated, and were, therefore, covered by executive privilege. 7 In support of his refusal, Director-General Santos submitted the letter dated September 28, 2007 of Executive Secretary Eduardo S. Ermita, 8 which stated as follows:
Please be informed that discussions in closed-door Cabinet and meetings are considered executive privilege (Chavez vs. PCGG, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998, Senate vs. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1 (2006)). Necessarily, minutes of said closed-door meetings are also covered by executive privilege. If internal deliberations, debates and positions of Cabinet members can be compelled to be disclosed, Cabinet officials will be unduly hampered in giving their frank, full, and free exchange of views in the shaping of decisions, policies and actions affecting the nation. In this case, the context in which executive privilege is being invoked is that the information sought to be disclosed goes into the question of whether or not we will honor our agreements with the People's Republic of China (PROC), which if disclosed might have negative implications in our diplomatic as well as economic relations with PROC.
With respect to the Project Evaluation Report dated 26 March 2007, the same cannot likewise be released on the ground that information between inter-government agencies prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements are considered executive privilege (Chavez v. PCGG, G.R. 130716, 9 December 1998). Bear in mind that the NBN project is being undertaken under the framework of an executive agreement that has yet to be perfected between the Republic of the Philippines (ROP) and the People's Republic of China (PROC). The NBN project is not yet a finalized project, and it is therefore premature to release documents prior to the conclusion of all implementing agreements under the framework of an executive agreement. The reason is that what is being requested may not yet represent the final terms and conditions of the final and complete agreement that may be concluded between the ROP and the PROC. AaHDSI
For the foregoing reasons, you are hereby directed not to release the said documents on the ground that the same are covered by executive privilege.
In view of the foregoing, Sen. Roxas, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Committee on Trade and Industry, and Sen. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III came to the Court on October 26, 2007 on certiorari and mandamus to seek the following reliefs:
a) Writ of Certiorari to nullify the letter of Respondent Executive Secretary Eduardo S. Ermita justifying NEDA Director General Augusto B. Santos' invalid claim of executive privilege for being unconstitutional and void; and
b) Writ of Mandamus to require and compel respondent NEDA Director General Augusto B. Santos to comply with the subpoena duces tecum dated 3 October 2007 issued by the Philippine Senate and submit all pertinent information and documents relative to the NBN project. 9
It is notable at this juncture that former Director-General Neri brought his own petition for certiorari in this Court on December 7, 2007 (G.R. No. 180643) against the Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, the Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, and the Senate Committee on National Defense and Security in order to assail the show-cause letter dated November 22, 2007 and the contempt order dated January 30, 2008 jointly issued against him by such Senate Committees as the consequence of his refusal to testify on what President Arroyo had told him during the meetings on the NBN-ZTE project.
On March 25, 2008, the Court promulgated its decision in G.R. No. 180643, 10 upholding the invocation by Director-General Neri of the doctrine of executive privilege, and annulling the order of contempt issued against him. Among others, the Court opined:
Using the above elements, we are convinced that, indeed, the communications elicited by the three (3) questions are covered by the presidential communications privilege. First, the communications relate to a "quintessential and non-delegable power" of the President, i.e., the power to enter into an executive agreement with other countries. This authority of the President to enter into executive agreements without the concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally been recognized in Philippine jurisprudence. Second, the communications are "received" by a close advisor of the President. Under the "operational proximity" test, petitioner can be considered a close advisor, being a member of President Arroyo's cabinet. And third, there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
The foregoing principle of law pronounced in G.R. No. 180643 settled the applicability of the doctrine of executive privilege to the matters covered by the conversations and discussions on the NBN-ZTE project. Although Director-General Santos invoked executive privilege to cover the minutes of the closed-door meetings involving the NBN-ZTE deal, while Director-General Neri invoked executive privilege to prevent his answering the questions from the Senators, the matters involved in the minutes and Director-General Neri's projected testimony were both parts of the deliberations on the NBN-ZTE deal. The pronouncement in G.R. No. 180643 thus extends to the issue being raised herein, for the petition for certiorari and mandamus arose from the same set of facts as those obtaining in and giving rise to the petition in G.R. No. 180643.
A precedent has thus been set for resolving this case. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition forcertiorari and mandamus on the basis of stare decisis et non quieta movere. The doctrine of stare decisis demands adherence to precedents and not to unsettle things that are already established. We apply the doctrine of stare decisis here, because the Court, after it has laid down a principle of law to be applicable to a certain set of facts, should adhere to such principle in its future cases for as long as the facts will be substantially the same, regardless of whether the parties are the same. 11 Indeed, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike. 12
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition for certiorari and mandamus." (adv8)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 5; see Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008, 549 SCRA 77, 103.
2. Rollo, p. 8.
3. Id. at 8-10; Neri v. Senate, id. at 104-105.
4. Annex A of the Petition, rollo, p. 29.
5. Annex B, id. at 30.
6. Annex C, id. at 31-32.
7. Annex D, id. at 33.
8. Annex E, id. at 35-36.
9. Rollo, p. 22.
10. 549 SCRA 77, 122.
11. Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 188302, June 27, 2012, 675 SCRA 339, 349-350.
12. Confederation of Sugar Producers Association, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), G.R. No. 169514, March 30, 2007, 519 SCRA 582, 619.