The Supreme Court (SC) dismissed the petition to compel the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee (SBRC) to release to the public the copy of its draft partial report on the probe into the multi-billion-peso anomalies in the government’s flood control project.

Dismissed by the SC during its full court session on Wednesday, Aug. 12, was the petition for mandamus filed by lawyers Eldrige Marvin Aceron, Sikini Labastilla and Purificacion Bartolome-Bernabe.

Affirmed by the SC was its previous denial of the lawyers’ plea for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) or status quo ante order (SQAO) to preserve the original version of the draft.

The SC said that mandamus may be used only to compel a public official or body to perform a ministerial duty clearly required by law that involves no discretion.

The press briefer issued by the SC’s Office of the Spokesperson stated that “the SC found no constitutional or legal obligation for the SBRC to release an unfinished draft report.”

The SC clarified that a draft report is a preliminary document and only becomes part of the official Senate record once it is finalized, approved by the SBRC, and submitted to the Senate plenary following the Senate’s internal rules.

Thus, the SC pointed out that since no law requires the SBRC to release an unfinished draft report, mandamus cannot be used to compel its disclosure.

It rejected the lawyers’ claim that the SBRC’s refusal to release the draft report violated their constitutional right to information.

It stressed that the right to information is not absolute, and it is subject to recognized limitations, including the deliberative process privilege which protects internal discussions while a decision is still being made, allowing officials to freely exchange views without the risk that preliminary or tentative positions will be mistaken for final decisions.

At the same time, the SC emphasized the constitutional principle of separation of powers. “Courts generally cannot interfere with matters that fall within the Legislature’s discretion or with the internal procedures of Congress, as long as these are exercised within constitutional limits,” it said.

The alleged draft report of the SBRC reportedly recommended the filing of criminal and administrative charges, including plunder, against several senators and other public officials.

The three lawyers claimed that they filed the SC petition after their request for a copy of a draft report was denied last Feb. 23 with the SBRC invoking the deliberative process privilege to prevent the “chilling effect on frank deliberation within government bodies.”

However, they pointed out that the privilege can no longer be invoked after then SBRC Chairman Sen. Panfilo Lacson disclosed the report’s contents to the public on numerous occasions.

They also said that the public has the right to information under Article III, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution.

The SC had earlier denied the petitioners’ plea for a TRO or SQAO.