NPC v. Pinatubo Commercial Facts: Napocor questions the decision rendered bt RTC of Mandaluyong City Branch 213 declaring ites 3 and 3!1 of N"C Circular No! ##$%& unconstitutional' (hich allo(s only partnership partnership or corporations that directly use aluinu as the ra( aterial to participate in the bidding disposal of )C*R (ires for being +iolati+e of substantial due process' ,"C' and restraining copetiti+e free trade and coerce! N"C Circ Circula ularr No! No! ##$%& ##$%& set the the guidel guideline ines s in the the dis dispos posal al of )C*R )C*R* * to ainta aintain in good good house-eeping in N"C installations and to generate additional incoe for N"C! .n )pril 2//3' N"C in+ited bidders for public sale of its scrap )C*R! "inatubo subitted a pre$quali0cation for but (as denied' and as-ed for reconsideration and again (as denied! "inatubo then 0led a petition in RTC for the annulent of N"C Circular No! ##%&' (ith a prayer for the issuance of a teporary restraining order or (rit of preliinary inunction! RTC upheld "inatubo4s position: *ubstanti+e due process: circular had not been published ,"C: fa+ored anufacturers and processors of aluinu scrap Free trade and coerce: it only allo(ed a certain sector to participate in the bidding N"C insists that there (as no need to publish the circular since it (as not of general application and (as addressed only to particular persons or class of persons' naely the dispo disposa sall coit coittee tees' s' head head of o5ces o5ces'' regio regional nal and all all other other o5cia o5cials ls in+ol in+ol+ed +ed in the disposi dis position tion of )C*Rs! )C*Rs! .t also contends contends that there (as a substan substantial tial distinct distinction ion bet(een bet(een anufacturers and traders of aluinu scrap! .ssue: 6hether N"C Circular No! ##$%& ust be published 7eld: N"C Circular No' ##$%& (as erely an internal rule or regulation! .t did not a8ect the rights of the public or any other persons persons not in+ol+ed in+ol+ed in the bidding bidding process! process! .t (as erely erely a direct directi+e i+e iss issued ued by the the N"C "resi "residen dentt to his subor subordin dinate ates s to regul regulate ate the prope properr and e5cient disposal of scrap )C*Rs to quali0ed bidders! The decision of the Regional Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City' Branch 213 dated 9une 3/' 2// and resolution dated No+eber 2/' 2// are REVERSED and SET ASIDE! Ci+il Case No!MC$/3$21%# for the annulent of N"C Circular No! ##$%& is hereby DISMISSED!
Pimentel V. Senate Committee of the Whole Facts: Before the Court is a petition for prohibition (ith prayer for issuance of a (rit of preliinary inunction and;or teporary restraining order 0led by*enators )quilino ' ManuelB! ?illar =*enator ?illar>' 9o-er "! )rroyo' Francis
N! "angilinan' "ia *! Cayetano' and )lan "eter *! Cayetano =petitioners>! "etitioners see- to propt the *enate Coittee of the 6hole =respondent> fro conducting further hearings on the coplaint 0led by *enator Maria )na Consuelo )!*! Madrigal =*enator Madrigal> against *enator ?illar pursuant to *enate Resolution No! %/ ="!*! Resolution %/> on the alleged double insertion of "2// illion for the C$& Road ,@tension "roect in the 2//A eneral )ppropriations )ct! "etitioners proposed 11 aendents to the Rules of the ,thics Coittee that (ould constitute the Rules of the *enate Coittee of the 6hole' out of (hich three aendents (ere adopted! n 1D May 2//#' *enator "ientel raised as an issue the need to publish the proposed aended Rules of the *enate Coittee of the 6hole! .ssue: 6hether or not publication of the Rules of the *enate Coittee of the 6hole is required for their e8ecti+ity 7eld: The language of *ection 21' )rticle ?. of the Constitution requiring that the inquiry be conducted in accordance (ith the dul !ubli"hed rule" of !rocedure is categorical! .t is incubent upon the *enate to publish the rules of its legislati+e inquiries in each Congress or other(ise a-e the published rules clearly state that the sae shall be e8ecti+e in the subsequent Congresses or until they are aended or repealed to su5ciently put public on notice! The Constitution does not require publication of the internal rules of the 7ouse or *enate! *ince rules of the 7ouse or the *enate that a8ect only their ebers are internal to the 7ouse or *enate' such rules need not be published' unle"" "uch rule" e#!re""l !rovide for their !ublication before the rule" can ta$e e%ect ! .n this case' the proceedings before the *enate Coittee of the 6hole a8ect only ebers of the *enate since the proceedings in+ol+e the *enates e@ercise of its disciplinary po(er o+er one of its ebers! Clearly' the Rules of the *enate Coittee of the 6hole are internal to the *enate! 7o(e+er' *ection A1' Rule 1& of the Rules of the *enate Coittee of the 6hole pro+ides that the Rules ust be published before the Rules can ta-e e8ect! Thus' e+en if publication is not required under the Constitution' publication of the Rules of the *enate Coittee of the 6hole is required because the Rules e@pressly andate their publication! Respondent cannot dispense (ith the publication requireent ust because the Rules of the ,thics Coittee had already been published in the 5cial aEette! To coply (ith due process requireents' the *enate ust follo( its o(n internal rules if the rights of its o(n ebers are a8ected!
N,R. ?*! *,N)T, CMM.TT,, F)CT*: n )pril 21' 2//%' the epartent of Transportation and Counication =TC> entered into a contract (ith Ghong Hing Telecounications ,quipent =GT,> for the supply of equipent and ser+ices for the National Broadband Net(or- =NBN> "roect in the aount of I!*! J 32#'DA1'2#/ =appro@iately "1 Billion "esos>! The "roect (as to be 0nanced by the "eople4s Republic of China!
The *enate passed +arious resolutions relati+e to the NBN deal! .n the *epteber 1A' 2//% hearing 9ose de ?enecia ... testi0ed that se+eral high e@ecuti+e o5cials and po(er bro-ers (ere using their inKuence to push the appro+al of the NBN "roect by the N,)! Neri' the head of N,)' (as then in+ited to testify before the *enate Blue Ribbon! 7e appeared in one hearing (herein he (as interrogated for 11 hrs and during (hich he aditted that )balos of CM,L,C tried to bribe hi (ith "2//M in e@change for his appro+al of the NBN proect! 7e further narrated that he infored "resident )rroyo about the bribery attept and that she instructed hi not to accept the bribe! 7o(e+er' (hen probed further on (hat they discussed about the NBN "roect' petitioner refused to ans(er' in+o-ing e@ecuti+e pri+ilege! .n particular' he refused to ans(er the questions on: =a> (hether or not "resident )rroyo follo(ed up the NBN "roect' =b> (hether or not she directed hi to prioritiEe it' and =c> (hether or not she directed hi to appro+e! 7e later refused to attend the other hearings and ,rita sent a letter to the senate a+erring that the counications bet(een M) and Neri are pri+ileged and that the urisprudence laid do(n in *enate +s ,rita be applied! 7e (as cited in contept of respondent coittees and an order for his arrest and detention until such tie that he (ould appear and gi+e his testiony! .**I,: )re the counications elicited by the subect three =3> questions co+ered by e@ecuti+e pri+ilegeO 7,L: The counications are co+ered by e@ecuti+e pri+ilege The re+ocation of , DD =ad+ised e@ecuti+e o5cials and eployees to follo( and abide by the Constitution' e@isting la(s and urisprudence' including' aong others' the case of *enate +! ,rita (hen they are in+ited to legislati+e inquiries in aid of legislation!>' does not in any (ay diinish the concept of e@ecuti+e pri+ilege! This is because this concept has Constitutional underpinnings! The clai of e@ecuti+e pri+ilege is highly recogniEed in cases (here the subect of inquiry relates to a po(er te@tually coitted by the Constitution to the "resident' such as the area of ilitary and foreign relations! Inder our Constitution' the "resident is the repository of the coander$in$chief' appointing' pardoning' and diploatic po(ers! Consistent (ith the doctrine of separation of po(ers' the inforation relating to these po(ers ay enoy greater con0dentiality than others! *e+eral urisprudence cited pro+ide the eleents of presidential counications pri+ilege: 1> The protected counication ust relate to a quintessential and non$delegable presidential po(er! 2> The counication ust be authored or solicited and recei+ed by a close ad+isor of the "resident or the "resident hiself! The udicial test is that an ad+isor ust be in operational pro@iity (ith the "resident! 3> The presidential counications pri+ilege reains a quali0ed pri+ilege that ay be o+ercoe by a sho(ing of adequate need' such that the inforation sought li-ely
contains iportant e+idence and by the una+ailability of the inforation else(here by an appropriate in+estigating authority! .n the case at bar' ,@ecuti+e *ecretary ,rita preised his clai of e@ecuti+e pri+ilege on the ground that the counications elicited by the three =3> questions fall under con+ersation and correspondence bet(een the "resident and public o5cials necessary in her e@ecuti+e and policy decision$a-ing process and' that the inforation sought to be disclosed ight ipair our diploatic as (ell as econoic relations (ith the "eople4s Republic of China! *iply put' the bases are presidential counications pri+ilege and e@ecuti+e pri+ilege on atters relating to diploacy or foreign relations! Ising the abo+e eleents' (e are con+inced that' indeed' the counications elicited by the three =3> questions are co+ered by the presidential counications pri+ilege! First' the counications relate to a quintessential and non$delegable po(er of the "resident' i!e! the po(er to enter into an e@ecuti+e agreeent (ith other countries! This authority of the "resident to enter into e@ecuti+e agreeents (ithout the concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally been recogniEed in "hilippine urisprudence! *econd' the counications are recei+ed by a close ad+isor of the "resident! Inder the operational pro@iity test' petitioner can be considered a close ad+isor' being a eber of "resident )rroyo4s cabinet! )nd third' there is no adequate sho(ing of a copelling need that (ould ustify the liitation of the pri+ilege and of the una+ailability of the inforation else(here by an appropriate in+estigating authority! Respondent Coittees further contend that the grant of petitioner4s clai of e@ecuti+e pri+ilege +iolates the constitutional pro+isions on the right of the people to inforation on atters of public concern!&/ 6e ight ha+e agreed (ith such contention if petitioner did not appear before the at all! But petitioner ade hiself a+ailable to the during the *epteber 2 hearing' (here he (as questioned for ele+en =11> hours! Not only that' he e@pressly anifested his (illingness to ans(er ore questions fro the *enators' (ith the e@ception only of those co+ered by his clai of e@ecuti+e pri+ilege! The right to public inforation' li-e any other right' is subect to liitation! *ection % of )rticle ... pro+ides: The right of the people to inforation on atters of public concern shall be recogniEed! )ccess to o5cial records' and to docuents' and papers pertaining to o5cial acts' transactions' or decisions' as (ell as to go+ernent research data used as basis for policy de+elopent' shall be a8orded the citiEen' subect to such liitations as ay be pro+ided by la(!
