MANILA, Philippines -- (UPDATE 2) At least 12 senators have agreed with the Supreme Court?s proposal to have former socioeconomic planning secretary Romulo Neri appear at the Senate investigating the national broadband network controversy without having to answer three questions, Senator Panfilo Lacson told INQUIRER.net.

But Lacson said Wednesday that the high tribunal?s proposal would still be discussed at the plenary later in the day to firm up the number.

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr., however, disagreed with the ?soft majority? and said he wants a definitive ruling on the issue.

?The Senate must stand firm, not back off, that Neri can?t just frivolously invoke executive privilege,? he said in a text message Wednesday.

?A compromise will perpetuate the issue raised unless the Supreme Court interprets decisively [the] constitutional articles,? he added.

The high tribunal said Neri should attend the hearing on the botched $329 million contract with China?s ZTE Corp. but could not answer the following questions: Did the President (Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) ask him to approve the contract despite his report of bribery and kickbacks? Did the President order him to prioritize the project? Did the President follow up on the contract?

?If that?s the best that we could get, why not? As long as Neri presents himself to the committees [investigating the case],? Lacson said, referring to the committees on blue-ribbon, national defense and security, and trade and commerce investigating the NBN project.

He said answering the three questions would only be affirmations because the senators already knew the answers to them.

But Pimentel said his reservations over the compromise proposal rest on the role of the Supreme Court -- which is ?to say what the law is.?

He said people expect the Supreme Court to discharge its role as arbiter of conflicts between the executive and legislative to avoid a constitutional crisis.

However, Lacson pointed out the ?thin line? between covering up a crime of bribery and executive privilege that the Supreme Court did not categorically define.

He said he accepted that the communication between Neri and the President would fall within the scope of executive privilege, which Neri had cited in his continued refusal to attend the Senate hearings on his participation as then director general of the National Economic and Development Authority.

But the senator said, ?We still need to know if there?s an attempt to cover up a crime and why the sudden change from a BOT [build-operate-transfer] to a loan agreement. In the meantime, I would settle for the compromise.?

Lacson said he had other questions for Neri apart from the three that the Supreme Court had said the senators could not ask the current chairman of the Commission on Higher Education. He said one of them would be about the legal requirements of a loan agreement between the Philippines and China.

He said aside from himself, the other senators who agreed with the Supreme Court proposal were Senate President Manuel Villar, Senate Majority Floor Leader Francis Pangilinan, Senate Pro Tempore Jose ?Jinggoy? Estrada, Senators Alan Peter Cayetano (head of the blue-ribbon committee), Rodolfo Biazon (head of the committee on national defense and security), Manuel Roxas (head of the committee on trade and commerce), Pia Cayetano, Loren Legarda, Benigno Aquino III, Francis Escudero, and Richard Gordon.

Roxas said he believed that the proposal was ?reasonable and practical? in moving the ?search for truth forward.?

?This is an assertion of the Senate?s right to call on resource persons in the conduct of its hearings. It also prescribes a sound process for the Court to look at how the Office of the President uses executive privilege,? he said.

Escudero said he agreed with the Supreme Court compromise proposal if only to break the impasse.

?Fine, let?s go through the shorter but tedious process if only to break the political impasse, but adopting this set-up lies on the shaky assumption that Neri will tell the naked truth when he appears before the Senate,? he said.

But Escudero also said that Neri should be able to convince the Senate that he was telling the truth.

Biazon shares Escudero?s position, saying he himself had questions other than the three prohibited by the Supreme Court, among them: Is there a submitted notice of cancellation of the contract? Was the Commission of Telecommunications, which is supposed to be consulted in approving the contract, allowed to study the network of the NBN project for the technical viability?