In the 2008 case of Romulo Neri, who claimed "executive privilege" as the reason for not telling on his conversations with President Gloria Arroyo, the present Supreme Court asked the Senate to go on with the Neri testimony while respecting Neri’s wishes not to tall on his principal – the President.

(In a sense, Neri’s defense is hypocritical. After all, no one would have known of his conversation with Gloria if he had not told his coterie of male friends about it. How could such a conversation get out of Malacañang if Neri had not blabbed this to at least two dozen male friends? Certainly, Gloria did not tell anyone about this.)

The Senate (and rightly so) rejected the no-balls compromise offered by the Supreme Court. It was as if the Senate was telling the Court to be men enough to stand up for principle.

"Executive privilege" does not cover criminal or illegal acts that are discussed among the perpetrators. This was the decision of the US Supreme Court in ruling that the White House recordings of conversations between the president and his cabinet secretaries and others on the break-in at the Democratic campaign offices.

In the same vein, clearly, Gloria’s being told that a bribe had been offered to her cabinet secretary and her reply not to take the bribe while still approving the project cannot possibly be covered. "Executive privilege" should cover only matters of national security and similar matters, not the misdeeds of a president and the cabinet!

What does the Senate’s rejection of the SC compromise tell us?

This is what it means: That the Senate holds the people’s right to information superior to the President’s desire to hide the misdeeds and excesses of her administration;

That accepting the SC’s no-balls compromise agreement would be tantamount to surrendering the Legislature’s powers to the SC, which would set off a slew of dangerous precedents;

That the Supreme Court should face up to its duty of ruling on the Neri case without resorting to "judicial evasion" by coming up with shameless compromise formulas that have no basis in law or tradition.

Both opposition and administration senators (Nene Pimentel and Richard Gordon) stress that the Legislative is a co-equal branch of the judicial. If it had agreed to the compromises, the Senate would have given up powers that the Constitution gives it and this would be tantamount to selling itself down the river. The Senate would demean itself.

Gordon called the SC decision "iwas pusoy," a gutless one. Pimentel said: "Nobody should tell us what to do. We are, in effect, asserting our power."

Even pro-administration senators Juan Ponce Enrile and Joker Arroyo put their thumbs down on the SC compromise deal. No way, Jose!

Senate President Manny Villar stresses that the senators only had the Senate and the country’s interest at heart when it made its decision, This was already beyond the case of whether Romulo Neri ought to tell the Senate all that he knows. This had become a challenge to the Senate as an institution. And the gutless Supreme Court wanted the Senate to "moderate" its powers?

Former justices of the Supreme Court who are now writing newspaper columns agree with the Senators.

Wrote immediate past Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban: "I cannot see how the petition of Neri for secrecy can be granted. I do not see any crucial military or diplomatic secrets in the NBN-ZTE deal. Neither are closed-door Cabinet meetings involved. Verily, no superior public interest can be served by suppressing his testimony." Besides, Neri has been telling everyone else what he refuses to tell the senators!

Former Justice Isagani Cruz wrote: "The action taken by the Supreme Court was a big disappointment. It was not a decision but an evasion.

"The Supreme Court is not a political institution. It is an apolitical body empowered to make judicial decisions that are binding and can be enforced against the political departments of the government and even the President of the Philippines."

Former Justice Vicente Mendoza said: "The Senate had nothing to gain over the Supreme Court-brokered compromise on the investigation of the National Broadband Network contract, and it may even hurt its institutional independence had it been implemented."

That caucus vote was among the more important that the Senate has ever taken. It is to our credit that our senators – administration and opposition – sailed through with flying colors. Bravo!

***

A visiting IT guy tells me that there is no way that a national broadband network can be put together for the whole country on the measly sums that are now being bandied about in the ZTE-NBN investigation.

Properly done, he says, such a project for the whole country would top $3 billion – without kickback, tongpats or any other bukol. I never agreed with the government’s national broadband proposal primarily because the government has always been a terrible modernization client. It is usually several light-years behind the ongoing techie revolution. Thus, it all too often invests in last decade’s technology rather than the leading edge. You just cannot trust it to do these things well.

Remember the telepono sa barangay project where posts and wires would be made available so that every barangay would have a landline? This was being implemented just as all of us were all rushing to purchase our first cell phones! (I wonder who made and how much money on that deal?)