THE Supreme Court has ordered the Senate to comment within 15 days on a petition challenging the Blue Ribbon Committee’s handling of a draft flood control investigation report.
In a resolution dated April 29, and released only this week, the Court acted on the petition for mandamus and certiorari filed by lawyers Eldrige Marvin Aceron, Sikini Labastilla and Purification Bartolome-Bernabe.
In the same issuance, the high tribunal denied a plea by the group for a temporary restraining order and status quo ante order.
Without giving due course to the petition, the Court ordered the respondent to submit its comment within 15 days from notice.
The petition challenged the Senate’s refusal to release a draft partial committee report on the multibillion-peso flood control projects investigation despite portions of the document allegedly being publicly discussed by committee officials.
In their 39-page petition filed on Feb. 25, the lawyers asked the Court to compel the committee to disclose the draft report, arguing that the deliberative process privilege invoked by the Senate had already been waived.
The dispute stemmed from the committee’s Feb. 23 denial of the lawyers’ request for a copy of the draft report. The Senate cited deliberative process privilege and an opinion from the Office of the Senate Legal Counsel recommending that the document remain confidential until finalized and signed by a majority of members.
The petitioners argued that the privilege could no longer apply after Sen. Panfilo Lacson allegedly disclosed portions of the draft report through social media posts, his website and media interviews.
According to the petition, Lacson publicly confirmed that the draft recommended criminal and administrative charges, including plunder, against Senators Francis Escudero, Joel Villanueva and Jinggoy Estrada. He also allegedly discussed the report’s evidentiary basis, committee dynamics and signature withdrawals by some members.
”The question before this Honorable Court is not why citizens need to see this document. The question is why the Senate needs to hide what its own chairman has already told the nation,” the petition stated.
The petition also asked the Court to rule on whether deliberative process privilege remains valid after voluntary disclosure, whether the draft report already constitutes a “definite proposition” under Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, and whether the constitutional right to information should be read alongside the principle of maximum disclosure under international human rights law.
The lawyers further noted that Senators Juan Miguel Zubiri, JV Ejercito and Sherwin Gatchalian initially signed the draft report but later withdrew their signatures without written explanation.
They argued that executive privilege doctrines cited by the Senate do not apply to legislative proceedings and that legislative privilege protects lawmakers from liability but does not authorize withholding completed investigative outputs from the public.
The petition sought the preservation of all versions of the draft report, including signed copies, and asked the Court to compel the Senate to release the document in full and explain the withdrawal of signatures by some senators.
