Privileges under Section 33 of A.M. No. 25-02-17-SC form a critical component of the procedural framework for international judicial assistance in civil or commercial matters. For the 2026 Bar, examinees must master this provision because essay questions frequently test the interplay between local privilege rules and foreign privileges when Philippine courts execute Letters of Request under the 1970 Hague Evidence Convention. The ability to correctly identify which privileges apply, the conditions for invoking them, and the proper application to facts distinguishes high-scoring answers.

Core Legal Basis and Definition

The governing issuance is A.M. No. 25-02-17-SC (promulgated March 4, 2025), entitled Rules on the Transmission and Execution of Letters of Request for Taking of Evidence in Civil or Commercial Matters under the 1970 Hague Evidence Convention.

Section 33 provides:

Section 33. Privileges – In the execution of a Letter of Request, the person examined may refuse to give evidence insofar as he or she has a privilege or duty to refuse to give the evidence:
(a) under Philippine Law, Rules, or regulation; or
(b) under the law of the Requesting Authority, and the privilege or duty has been specified in the Letter of Request.

Section 2(s) defines "Privileged Matters" as matters protected by a legal privilege or duty recognized under the laws of either the Requesting or Requested State, which allows the person examined to refuse to give evidence.

This rule applies when a foreign court or authority transmits a Letter of Request to Philippine courts for the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (inbound requests). It does not apply to purely domestic litigation or criminal cases.

Essential Requisites / Elements

For a witness in the Philippines to validly refuse to give evidence during the execution of a Letter of Request, the following must concur:

There must be a pending Letter of Request from a foreign Requesting Authority (court or competent body of another Contracting State) for the taking of evidence or performance of a related judicial act in civil or commercial matters.
The person examined must possess a privilege or duty to refuse disclosure.
The privilege or duty must fall under either:
- (a) Philippine law, rules, or regulation (e.g., Rule 130, Section 24 of the Revised Rules on Evidence on disqualification by reason of privileged communications — marital privilege, attorney-client privilege, physician/psychotherapist privilege, priest-penitent privilege, or public officer/state secrets privilege; or other statutory privileges such as those under the Data Privacy Act for privileged information); or
- (b) the law of the Requesting Authority, but only if that specific privilege or duty has been specified in the Letter of Request.
The refusal must be asserted by the person examined (or counsel) at the time of examination before the Philippine executing court or officer.

The executing Philippine court determines the existence and applicability of the claimed privilege.

Key Distinctions from Domestic Privileges

Domestic litigation — Only Philippine privileges under Rule 130 (and other applicable laws) may be invoked. Foreign privileges have no direct application.
Under A.M. No. 25-02-17-SC, Sec. 33 (Hague LOR execution) — The witness may invoke either Philippine privileges or qualifying foreign privileges (if properly specified in the Letter of Request). This expands the grounds for refusal beyond purely local law.
Specification requirement — A foreign privilege is unavailable unless it is expressly identified in the Letter of Request itself. Mere existence under foreign law is insufficient.
Scope limitation — Applies only to civil or commercial matters under the Hague Evidence Convention framework and only during execution of inbound Letters of Request. It does not create new privileges; it merely recognizes existing ones from either jurisdiction under stated conditions.

How This Topic Appears in Bar Essay Questions

Examiners typically present a fact pattern involving:

A foreign court (e.g., in the United States, Singapore, or another Contracting State) issuing a Letter of Request to a Philippine Regional Trial Court to examine a witness located in the Philippines.
The witness (often a lawyer, spouse, physician, priest, or corporate officer) refuses to answer certain questions, claiming either a local privilege (e.g., attorney-client) or a foreign privilege (e.g., a specific U.S. discovery privilege or bank secrecy rule).
Questions ask: (1) May the witness validly refuse? (2) Which law governs? (3) What is the procedure? or (4) What should the Philippine court do?

Best answer structure:

State the legal basis first: A.M. No. 25-02-17-SC, Sec. 33, in relation to the 1970 Hague Evidence Convention and Rule 130 privileges.
Quote or paraphrase the exact text of Sec. 33.
Identify the nature of the privilege claimed and whether it qualifies under (a) or (b).
Apply the facts: Check if the foreign privilege was “specified in the Letter of Request.”
Conclude with the consequence (witness may refuse; court may sustain the refusal or compel if the claim is unfounded).
Address any related issues (e.g., waiver, protective orders, or return of the executed Letter of Request).

Common pitfalls to avoid:

Assuming only Philippine privileges apply (ignores sub-paragraph (b)).
Failing to note the “specified in the Letter of Request” requirement for foreign privileges.
Confusing this with outbound requests (Philippine-issued Letters of Request to foreign states) or with criminal procedure privileges.
Citing post-June 30, 2025 developments or the Convention’s entry into force (July 5, 2025).

Practical Application Tips

When analyzing a problem:

Determine first whether the scenario involves execution of a foreign Letter of Request in the Philippines.
List all possible privileges: local (Rule 130, Sec. 24 and special laws) and any foreign ones mentioned or implied.
Verify specification in the Letter of Request for any foreign claim.
Remember that the executing court retains authority to rule on the validity of the claim and may require supporting proof or legal memorandum on the foreign privilege.

Memory aid: In Hague LOR execution, the witness has a “Dual Key” to refuse — Philippine law or foreign law (but the foreign key must be handed over in the Letter of Request itself).

Key Takeaways

Section 33 of A.M. No. 25-02-17-SC is the specific codal provision governing privileges during execution of foreign Letters of Request in civil or commercial matters.
The witness may refuse on the basis of Philippine privileges (Rule 130 and statutes) or foreign privileges (only if expressly specified in the Letter of Request).
This creates a limited but important expansion of refusal grounds compared to purely domestic cases.
Always cite the exact text of Sec. 33 and distinguish it from domestic privilege rules in essay answers.
As of June 30, 2025, this remains a new, high-yield provision with no Supreme Court jurisprudence interpreting it; mastery of the codal text and its application to facts is sufficient and expected.

Master this provision alongside the related sections on use, effect, and admissibility of evidence taken abroad (Secs. 18–20) to confidently handle any essay on cross-border evidence gathering.