It took some time for a waiting public to sense the full shape of the Supreme Court's compromise proposal in Romulo Neri's executive privilege case. News of the proposal came in late Tuesday, after marathon oral arguments at the Court. And important details of the proposal were seemingly lost in the translation, from legal language to ordinary speech. As it turns out, the compromise is not in lieu of a court ruling on the case; it is a compromise while the decision is pending.

The Senate would do well to accept it.

Essentially, what the Court did was to: (a) recognise its limits and (b) recognise the public clamour for transparency and truth in the National Broadband Network controversy.

It is the public's responsibility to accept the Supreme Court's limits too. The tradition of collegial decision-making against a rich background of precedent requires deliberation, a careful weighing of words and choices. Cases take time to decide.

At the same time, it is the responsibility of the various instrumentalities of government to heed public opinion. Some six months after Joey de Venecia, the son of the former speaker and a losing proponent of the national broadband network (NBN) project, testified about First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo's alleged involvement in the overpriced project, what the public wants from the ongoing Senate investigation into the NBN scandal and the role the Chinese firm ZTE played in it has evolved. From a passing interest in the details of what administration Sen Miriam Defensor-Santiago characterised as a quarrel among thieves, the public now wants to discover (in classic Watergate-speak) what President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo knew, and when she knew it.

The Palace may rue the spectacular mishandling and dramatic appearance of Rodolfo Noel Lozada Jr as the Senate's star witness, but there is no doubt that his testimony has simplified the matter for many Filipinos. Now more and more people (the long list now includes Vice President Noli de Castro and President Arroyo's classmates from Assumption College) want to know the truth.

In other words, the investigation into the ZTE-NBN mess is no longer merely in aid of legislation (although we trust that new legislation will result from the probe, say to plug current loopholes in utilising official development assistance), but in aid of transparency and truth. In the jargon of the moment, the public wants 'closure'?that is, accountability from all those involved.

It is this sense of the shifting shape of public interest that seems to have informed the Supreme Court's unusual compromise proposal. If the Court were to proceed at its usual ruminative pace, the public clamour for more transparency in the ZTE-NBN deal may end up ill-served. Neri, the director general of the National Economic and Development Authority at the time of the contract's approval and the alleged recipient of a P200-million bribe offer from Benjamin Abalos, now-resigned chair of the Commission on Elections, may not return to the Senate for another month or so. The opportune moment to reconcile the sometimes conflicting testimony of principal witnesses Lozada and his close friend Neri may pass us by.

The compromise allows the Senate to immediately summon Neri back to the witnesses' panel. (He may be called back as early as tomorrow.) The three questions he deems protected by the overbroad mantle of executive privilege, plus other specific questions he may decline to answer in the future, will be covered in the pending Supreme Court decision. But as Sen Mar Roxas, one of the committee chairmen leading the inquiry, noted Wednesday, the compromise allows the senators to immediately begin asking Neri more questions.

The compromise is a way forward. We should note that Malacanang has welcomed the 'Solomonic' proposal. Either the President's handlers believe that Neri really has nothing to hide, or they mis-appreciate the depth of public agitation for the truth about the ZTE-NBN deal. In the court of public opinion, Neri has no more room to hedge.