You're currently signed in as:
User

MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO v. FIDEL VALDEZ RAMOS

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

2008-09-04
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Third, respondent Committees claim that the Court erred in upholding the President's invocation, through the Executive Secretary, of executive privilege because (a) between respondent Committees' specific and demonstrated need and the President's generalized interest in confidentiality, there is a need to strike the balance in favor of the former; and (b) in the balancing of interest, the Court disregarded the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution on government transparency, accountability and disclosure of information, specifically, Article III, Section 7;[29] Article II, Sections 24[30] and 28;[31] Article XI, Section 1;[32] Article XVI, Section 10;[33] Article VII, Section 20;[34] and Article XII, Sections 9,[35] 21,[36] and 22.[37]