MANILA, Philippines—Saying the dangers of presidential abuse had significantly increased, the Senate Tuesday warned that the nation was on the road to "autocracy" unless the Supreme Court reversed its March 25 ruling on executive privilege.

In a 105-page motion for reconsideration filed with the high tribunal, the Senate said that the constitutional principles of transparency and accountability were stronger than the need to keep President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's knowledge of an alleged criminal activity secret.

The Senate said that the tribunal's decision in the case of former Director General Romulo Neri of the National Economic Development Authority "did not, by any stretch of one's imagination, contribute to the fight against graft and corruption."

"Rather, it directly makes the executive less transparent and weakens government accountability," it said. "In the face of a pattern of concealment by executive officials as apparent in many legislative investigations, the dangers of abuse of executive privilege by the executive branch have significantly increased."

The respondents also noted that the Neri ruling, if not corrected, could “effectively turn executive privilege into a refuge for scoundrels.”

The Senate quoted Justice Louis Brandeis of the US Supreme Court as observing that the three government branches "must have that 'inevitable friction,' to be able to preserve the vibrancy of a democracy and save the citizenry from 'autocratic' rule where there are 'no checks and balances.'"

"Unfortunately, the Neri Decision, if allowed to become final, shall be the jurisprudential springboard to unduly destroy such 'inevitable friction' paving the way for autocracy in our government," the Senate said.

The Senate also cautioned the tribunal that its reputation for independence could suffer, noting that its ruling could make it known as the "Arroyo Supreme Court."

"Were majority of the justices swayed by the various 'propaganda for the President?' Harsh as they may sound, the perception is very serious," it said.

"Rightly or wrongly, the perpetuation of this Neri ruling will cause the lingering impression that this court, through the ponencia of Madam Justice Teresita de Castro, has lost its independence," it said.

The senators added that while they recognized that it was difficult to decide a question of first impression especially when it involved a clash between two co-equal bodies, they urged the high court to perform "its sworn constitutional duty and function to uphold the Rule of Law with utmost impartiality and circumspection, not for the benefit of either branch, but as an end unto itself."

Seeking another crack on the issue, the Senate asked for a new round of oral arguments and requested that Neri be required to attend. The court is expected to tackle the Senate's motion on April 15 during its en banc session in Baguio City, where it is holding its summer session.

Walk for truth

Senators Alan Peter Cayetano and Benigno Aquino III led about 100 marchers in a 15-minute "walk for truth" from Adamson University to the Supreme Court building to dramatize their indignation over the scuttled $329-million National Broadband Network (NBN) project with China's ZTE Corp., which is under Senate investigation.

"We participated in this activity because we want to inform the public that the NBN-ZTE controversy is a big issue that should be dealt with thoroughly," Cayetano said.

He clarified however that the unity walk was not a way of pressuring the high tribunal to rule in favor of the Senate.

“This is part of the advocacy for the Senate to come out in relation to what has been happening and to generate support,” Cayetano said.

"We want the Supreme Court to take a step backwards, look at the bigger picture…If the Supreme Court will retain the decision, the Supreme Court has given Malacañang the reason to adopt the TNT policy or tago ng tago [always hiding]. But if the Supreme Court will define when to properly invoke executive privilege and uphold the prerogatives of the Senate and the Congress, then good governance will take center stage," he said.

Among the marchers were star witness Rodolfo Lozada Jr., United Opposition president and Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay, opposition spokesman Adel Tamano, Congresswoman Riza Hontiveros Baraquel, and actor Pen Medina, as well as nuns holding yellow banners calling for "truth, accountability and reforms."

The Supreme Court's March 25 decision upheld the right of Neri to refuse to answer further questions after his revelation during a Senate hearing on Sept. 26 that he had told Ms Arroyo that former Commission on Elections Chair Benjamin Abalos had allegedly offered him a P200-million bribe to endorse the ZTE deal.

3 questions

The ruling stated that the three questions that Neri, now chair of the Commission on Higher Education, refused to answer were covered by executive privilege.

The questions were whether the President followed up on the NBN project, whether Neri was told to prioritize it and whether she told him to approve the deal after being informed of the alleged bribe.

The tribunal had voted 9-6 that the questions were covered by executive privilege, and 10-5 that the Senate could neither cite Neri for contempt nor arrest him.

Ms Arroyo subsequently cancelled the NBN project following allegations her husband was involved in massive kickbacks that triggered renewed calls for her resignation.

In its motion, the Senate cited the constitutional provisions on the right to information, full public disclosure in transactions involving public interest, accountability of public officials and securing public loans, which require the disclosure of details.

Greater public interest

The Senate said Neri had failed to show how the information sought from him would damage the country's diplomatic and economic relationship with China, and noted that the project's contractor was a private corporation. There were no military secrets at stake, as Neri's counsel admitted, it added.

"However, it cannot be claimed that discussions which may reveal the extent of the President's participation in the NBN project despite her knowledge of a bribe offer, are crucial in the fulfillment of her executive duties and responsibilities as to outweigh the greater public interest in the enactment of remedial legislation, coupled with the constitutional mandates of public accountability and the people's right to information," the Senate said.

Quoting extensively from the opinions of dissenting justices, the Senate also said the three questions were relevant to its NBN investigation in aid of legislation.

"Curbing graft and corruption among officials of the executive branch is a legitimate legislative function," the Senate said.

It said the tribunal should have rejected Neri's claim of executive privilege based on its previous ruling on Executive Order No. 464, in which it said that any executive issuance that limits the release of information in legislative investigations deprived the people of information.

Publication of rules

Standing pat on its claim that it is a continuing body, the Senate disputed the tribunal's ruling that it committed grave abuse of authority when it cited Neri for contempt without first publishing its rules on the conduct of investigations.

The Senate said the publication of its rules in 1995 and 2006 was sufficient and that it had complied with the requirement of informing the public about them since the rules were on its website. It said the Internet had a wider readership than newspapers.

"Even during the Constitutional Commission, it has already recognized the Senate as a continuing institution so we have not violated any rule and the order of arrest on Secretary Neri is proper," Cayetano said.

The Senate has not yet filed its motion asking for the inhibition of Associate Justices Renato Corona, Presbitero Velasco Jr., and Arturo Brion.

Lawyer Carlos Media said the Senate would still need to issue a resolution signed by all the senators before the motion would be filed with the Supreme Court.

Cayetano said no date has been set for the next Senate hearing on the NBN controversy as they were still waiting for the next witness' affirmation. With reports from Margaux C. Ortiz and Abigail Kwok, INQUIRER.net