SC: Senate need not release flood report
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by lawyers asking it to order the Senate to release the draft partial report on the flood control scam, saying the chamber was not legally obligated to do so.
The high tribunal, which has yet to publicly release its decision, also noted that the Senate blue ribbon committee did not violate any constitutional right of the petitioners when it decided not to release the report containing its findings from the hearings on the controversy.
During an en banc session, the Supreme Court acted on the 33-page petition for mandamus and certiorari filed by lawyers Eldridge Marvin Aceron, Sikini Labastilla and Purificacion Bartolome-Bernabe in March.
It noted that the mandamus may be used in cases when a public official or government body fails to perform a duty required under the law and “involves no discretion.”
“In this case, the SC found no constitutional or legal obligation for the committee to release an unfinished draft report. It clarified that a draft report is a preliminary document and only becomes part of the official Senate record once it is finalized, approved by the committee and submitted to the Senate plenary following the Senate’s internal rules,” it said in a statement.
“Since no law requires the Committee to release an unfinished draft report, mandamus cannot be used to compel its disclosure,” it added.
The petitioners had sought the high court’s intervention through the issuance of a mandamus writ that would have ordered the Senate blue ribbon panel, then chaired by Sen. Panfilo Lacson, to make public a “full, complete and unredacted text” of the partial committee report.
Lack of sponsors
The draft report failed to reach the plenary as it was signed by only seven senators, short of the nine signatures needed for its sponsorship.
In May, Lacson delivered a privilege speech on the blue ribbon committee’s findings, which included a recommendation to subject several lawmakers to preliminary investigation for their alleged role in the multibillion-peso kickback scheme.
Although he did not name them in his speech, a “menu” of possible criminal charges that he presented on the Senate floor showed several lists of individuals. They included six incumbent and former lawmakers who were listed for preliminary or fact-finding investigation or case build-up for possible charges of direct bribery, antigraft and corrupt practices and even plunder.
Among them were Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, former Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. and former House Rep. Zaldy Co, who have all since been charged for their alleged involvement in the scam.
In their petition before the high court, the lawyers argued that they were denied of their constitutional right to information when the Senate committee withheld the release of the draft report.
Subject to limitations
But the Supreme Court disagreed and said the right to information “is not absolute.”
“It is subject to recognized limitations, including the deliberative process privilege. This privilege protects internal discussions while a decision is still being made, allowing officials to freely exchange views without the risk that preliminary or tentative positions will be mistaken for final decisions,” it explained.
It also pointed to the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary, noting that the Supreme Court cannot interfere with matters that fall within the discretion of Congress “as long as these are exercised within constitutional limits.” —WITH A REPORT FROM FRANCES AGBAYANI, Inquirer intern
******
Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber
