US v. Nixon | 506
US 224 | Jul. 24, 1974 | Burger, C.J. | Topic: Concept of
Executive Privilege |
DOCTRINE: Executive
privilege is not absolute. Generalized interest in confidentiality (no specific
and valid reasons alleged) must yield to due process of law and justice.
Definition: Subpoena
duces tecum - a court summons
ordering the recipient to appear before the court and produce documents or
other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial.
Relevant
Provisions:
Sec. 1 of Art VII of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution:
- “TThe executive power shall be vested in
the President of the Philippines”
- Executive privilege is the power of the
President to withhold certain types of information the courts, the Congress,
and ultimately the public. However, it is not absolute. Presidential
communication is presumptively privileged but the presumption is subject to
rebuttal.
Federal Rule Criminal Procedures 17(c) /
Rule 17(c):- A subpoena may also command the person
to whom it is directed to produce the books, papers, documents or other objects
designated therein. The court on motion made promptly may quash or modify the
subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.
- The court may
direct that books, papers, documents or objects designated in the subpoena be
produced before the court at a time prior to the trial or prior to the time
when they are to be offered in evidence and may upon their production permit
the books, papers, documents or objects or portions thereof to be inspected by
the parties and their attorneys.
FACTS:
A grand jury of the
US District Court for the District of
Columbia returned an indictment charging seven named individuals with various offenses, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and to
obstruct justice.
The grand jury named the President an
unindicted co-conspirator.
The special prosecutor in the Watergate
scandal subpoenaed (subpoena duces tecum) the tape recordings of conversations
involving the President and his advisers regarding the scandal.
The
President publicly released edited transcripts of 43 conversations;
portions of 20 conversations subject
to subpoena in the present case were included. The President’s counsel moved to quash the subpoena
citing Article II of the United States Constitution (the “Constitution”) and
its grant of privilege to the President. The President’s counsel also argued it
was a non-justiciable question because it was a disagreement between parts of
the executive branch.
The District Court denied the motion to
quash and the motions to expunge and for protective orders. It further ordered
that the President or any subordinate who has control of the documents needed
to deliver to the District Court the originals of all subpoenaed items, as well
as an index and analysis of those items, together with tape copies of those
portions of the subpoenaed recordings for which transcripts had been released
to the public by the President
ISSUE AND HELD:
Whether
or not the subpoena duces tecum is binding upon the US President based on the
principles of executive privilege and separation of powers? [Yes]
The Court held that neither the doctrine
of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of
high-level communications,
without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified,presidential privilege. The Court
granted that there
was a limited executive privilege in areas of
military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to "the fundamental
demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice."
Therefore, the president must obey the
subpoena and produce the tapes and documents.
The
Supreme Court (SC) had to
balance the executive privilege against the rights of citizens to face their
accusers and to have a speedy and fair trial. The Court made the point that the
President is not a normal citizen, and therefore should receive great deference
regarding executive claims of privilege.
However, executive privilege
is not absolute
and must be
balanced against the right of the accused in criminal proceedings. The
Court took great care to limit its opinion because it was delving into a
political dispute between the President and Congress, something the SC is loath
to do.
The legitimate need of the judicial
process outweighs the Presidential privilege.
Comments
Post a Comment