MANILA, Philippines -- In proposing a compromise to end the standoff between former Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Romulo Neri and the Senate, the Supreme Court is buying time to deliberate exhaustively and lay down a ruling on what executive privilege should cover for all time.

When the court issues its ruling, possibly in two or three weeks, there will be no need to go to the tribunal every time the privilege is invoked, spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez said in a briefing Wednesday.

He said the Senate rejection of the compromise was ?unfortunate.?

?We could have hastened the process and come up with a more categorical decision,? he said.

Marquez brushed aside criticism that the compromise hammered out by Chief Justice Reynato Puno after an eight-hour hearing on Tuesday favored Malacañang.

Neri had petitioned the tribunal to stop the Senate from questioning him further on his conversations with President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo after he told her about an alleged bribe of P200 million for his endorsement of a $329-million broadband deal with China.
He also asked the court to set aside an arrest warrant issued by the Senate against him for clamming up in accordance with a Palace directive.

The 3 questions

Under the Puno solution, Neri would not be arrested or compelled to respond to three questions that he had earlier refused to answer in a previous appearance before the Senate panel investigating the alleged anomalous project.

The questions centered on whether the President ordered Neri to proceed with the project even after he had told her about the bribe attempt, whether she had told him to give priority to the deal and whether she had followed up on this.

Marquez said the court would rule on whether these questions constituted privileged communication and therefore could not be answered in public. He said the court also would wait to see if Neri would again raise this issue on other questions that might crop up at the resumption of his testimony.

More questions as guide

?These three questions are deemed submitted for decision by the Supreme Court,? he said.

?If there are more questions asked, then at least we could define more clearly the parameters of executive privilege. We could use those 20 or so questions as guide, instead of just three,? he said.

Marquez also said the Senate had something to gain from accepting the compromise deal because then, Neri would appear in its investigation, even though he would not be asked the three questions.

Law in other countries

?Didn?t he want to attend the hearing in the first place because of what might be asked him and he might not be able to answer? Here, we?re telling Secretary Neri to go to the Senate. I don?t think this is really siding with anyone but what the principle of executive privilege provides,? he said.

?We are doing this so that the issue would not keep on returning to the Supreme Court. If we don?t do this, then what could happen is that the Supreme Court could decide on the three questions, but in the meantime, there would be no Senate hearing.

Marquez also said there had been jurisprudence in other countries showing that there should be minimal court intervention in matters concerning executive privilege.

During the marathon oral arguments on Tuesday, some justices wondered whether the dispute was better resolved by the executive and legislative branches.

Justice Renato Corona said: ?Don?t the circumstances require delicate political judgment that the court is ill-equipped to make because it can?t foresee the implications??