SC: Justices, court employees can’t be compelled to testify on internal matters

MANILA, Philippines – Separation of powers and respect for co-equal branch of government should be observed, the Supreme Court said, as it ruled that its justices, other members of the Judiciary and court employees could not be compelled to testify on matters about its internal deliberations that were confidential in nature.

In a 28-page resolution dated February 14 but which was released to the media Thursday, the high court said like the legislative and the executive that invoke privilege communication, the judiciary could also claim the exemption when asked about privileged information.

“A justice of the court or a judge may invoke judicial privilege in the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court, for proceedings in the performance of his or her own judicial functions. What applies to magistrates applies with equal force to court officials and employees who are privy to these deliberations,” the high court said.

They added that when the legislative and executive invoked privilege communication, they have respected the requests of the two branches of government.

Quoting the case of Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, the high court said “like internal deliberations of the Supreme Court and other collegiate courts or executive sessions of either house of Congress, are recognized as confidential. This kind of information cannot be pried open by a co-equal branch of government. A frank exchange of exploratory ideas and assessments, free from the glare of publicity and pressure by interested parties, is essential to protect the independence of decision-making of those tasked to exercise Presidential, Legislative and Judicial power.”

The high court came up with the resolution following the letter sent by First District Cavite Representative Joseph Emilio Abaya requesting for certified true copy documents related to the Philippine Airline Case as well as case records of the petition filed by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and the request for subpoena to Supreme Court Justices.

The high court ruled that confidential documents such as records of raffled cases, assignment of cases, deliberations, records of pending cases, confidential information obtained by justices, judges and court personnel, among others could not be disclosed. It said that only those documents such as promulgated decisions and resolution as well as separate and concurring opinions may be disclosed.

Since it is a matter of public records, the high court said, the justices, judges and court employees need not testify on those documents since it was of public record.

“Necessity consists in the inconvenience and difficulty of requiring the official’s attendance as a witness to testify to the innumerable transactions in the course of his duty. A public officer is excused from appearing in court in order that public business may not be interrupted, hampered or delayed. Where there is no exception for official statements, hosts of officials would be found devoting the greater part of their time attending as witnesses in court, delivering their deposition before an officer,” the high court said.