Garcillano V House

9/11/2015 G.R. No.
170338
ENBANC

VIRGILIOO.GARCILLANO, G.R.No.170338
Petitioner,

versus

THEHOUSEOF
REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEESONPUBLIC
INFORMATION,PUBLIC
ORDERANDSAFETY,
NATIONALDEFENSEAND
SECURITY,INFORMATION
ANDCOMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY,and
SUFFRAGEANDELECTORAL
REFORMS,
Respondents.
XX

SANTIAGOJAVIERRANADA G.R.No.179275
andOSWALDOD.AGCAOILI,
Petitioners,

versus

THESENATEOFTHE
REPUBLICOFTHE
PHILIPPINES,REPRESENTED Present:
BYTHESENATEPRESIDENT PUNO,C.J.,
THEHONORABLEMANUEL QUISUMBING,
VILLAR, YNARESSANTIAGO,
Respondent. CARPIO,
XX AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
CORONA,*
MAJ.LINDSAYREXSAGGE, CARPIOMORALES,
PetitionerinIntervention. AZCUNA,
TINGA,
XX CHICONAZARIO,
VELASCO,JR.,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/170338.htm 1/18
9/11/2015 G.R. No. 170338
AQUILINOQ.PIMENTEL,JR., NACHURA,
BENIGNONOYNOYC. REYES,
AQUINO,RODOLFOG. LEONARDODE CASTRO,
BIAZON,PANFILOM. and
LACSON,LORENB. BRION,JJ.
LEGARDA,M.A.JAMBYA.S.
MADRIGAL,andANTONIOF. Promulgated:
TRILLANES,
RespondentsIntervenors. December23,2008

xx

DECISION

NACHURA,J.:

More than three years ago, tapes ostensibly containing a wiretapped conversation
purportedly between the President of the Philippines and a highranking official of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) surfaced. They captured unprecedented public
attentionandthrustthecountryintoacontroversythatplacedthelegitimacyofthepresent
administration on the line, and resulted in the nearcollapse of the Arroyo government.
The tapes, notoriously referred to as the Hello Garci tapes, allegedly contained the
PresidentsinstructionstoCOMELECCommissionerVirgilioGarcillanotomanipulatein
herfavorresultsofthe2004presidentialelections.Theserecordingsweretobecomethe
subjectofheatedlegislativehearingsconductedseparatelybycommitteesofbothHouses
[1]
ofCongress.

In the House of Representatives (House), on June 8, 2005, then Minority Floor
LeaderFrancisG.Escuderodeliveredaprivilegespeech,TaleofTwoTapes,andsetin
motion a congressional investigation jointly conducted by the Committees on Public
Information, Public Order and Safety, National Defense and Security, Information and
Communications Technology, and Suffrage and Electoral Reforms (respondent House
Committees). During the inquiry, several versions of the wiretapped conversation
emerged.ButonJuly5,2005,NationalBureauofInvestigation(NBI)DirectorReynaldo
9/11/2015 G.R. No. 170338
Wycoco,Atty.AlanPaguiaandthelawyerofformerNBIDeputyDirectorSamuelOng
submittedtotherespondentHouseCommitteessevenallegedoriginaltaperecordingsof
the supposed threehour taped conversation. After prolonged and impassioned debate by
thecommitteemembersontheadmissibilityandauthenticityoftherecordings,thetapes
[2]
wereeventuallyplayedinthechambersoftheHouse.

On August 3, 2005, the respondent House Committees decided to suspend the
hearings indefinitely. Nevertheless, they decided to prepare committee reports based on
[3]
thesaidrecordingsandthetestimoniesoftheresourcepersons.

Alarmedbythesedevelopments,petitionerVirgilioO.Garcillano(Garcillano)filed
with this Court a Petition for Prohibition and Injunction, with Prayer for Temporary
[4]
RestrainingOrderand/orWritofPreliminaryInjunction docketedasG.R.No.170338.
He prayed that the respondent House Committees be restrained from using these tape
recordings of the illegally obtained wiretapped conversations in their committee reports
andforanyotherpurpose.Hefurtherimploredthatthesaidrecordingsandanyreference
thereto be ordered stricken off the records of the inquiry, and the respondent House
Committees directed to desist from further using the recordings in any of the House
[5]
proceedings.

Without reaching its denouement, the House discussion and debates on the Garci
tapesabruptlystopped.

After more than two years of quiescence, Senator Panfilo Lacson roused the
slumberingissuewithaprivilegespeech,TheLighthouseThatBroughtDarkness.Inhis
discourse,SenatorLacsonpromisedtoprovidethepublicthewholeunvarnishedtruththe
whats,whens,wheres,whosandwhysoftheallegedwiretap,andsoughtaninquiryinto
the perceived willingness of telecommunications providers to participate in nefarious
wiretappingactivities.

9/11/2015 G.R. No. 170338
On motion of Senator Francis Pangilinan, Senator Lacsons speech was referred to

the Senate Committee on National Defense and Security, chaired by Senator Rodolfo
[6]
Biazon, who had previously filed two bills seeking to regulate the sale, purchase and
useofwiretappingequipmentandtoprohibittheArmedForcesofthePhilippines(AFP)
[7]
fromperformingelectoralduties.

In the Senates plenary session the following day, a lengthy debate ensued when
SenatorRichardGordonairedhisconcernonthepossibletransgressionofRepublicAct
[8]
(R.A.) No. 4200 if the body were to conduct a legislative inquiry on the matter. On
August 28, 2007, Senator Miriam DefensorSantiago delivered a privilege speech,
articulatingherconsideredviewthattheConstitutionabsolutelybanstheuse,possession,
replay or communication of the contents of the Hello Garci tapes. However, she
recommended a legislative investigation into the role of the Intelligence Service of the
AFP (ISAFP), the Philippine National Police or other government entities in the alleged
[9]
illegalwiretappingofpublicofficials.

OnSeptember6,2007,petitionersSantiagoRanadaandOswaldoAgcaoili,retired
justices of the Court of Appeals, filed before this Court a Petition for Prohibition with
Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
[10]
Injunction, docketedasG.R.No.179275,seekingtobartheSenatefromconducting
its scheduled legislative inquiry. They argued in the main that the intended legislative
[11]
inquiryviolatesR.A.No.4200andSection3,ArticleIIIoftheConstitution.

AstheCourtdidnotissueaninjunctivewrit,theSenateproceededwithitspublic
[12] [13] [14]
hearingsontheHelloGarcitapesonSeptember7, 17 andOctober1, 2007.

[15]
Intervening as respondents, Senators Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Benigno
Noynoy C. Aquino, Rodolfo G. Biazon, Panfilo M. Lacson, Loren B. Legarda, M.A.
9/11/2015 G.R. No. 170338
[16]
JambyA.S.MadrigalandAntonioF.TrillanesfiledtheirComment onthepetitionon
September25,2007.

[17]
TheCourtsubsequentlyheardthecaseonoralargument.

OnOctober26,2007,Maj.LindsayRexSagge,amemberoftheISAFPandoneof
theresourcepersonssummonedbytheSenatetoappearandtestifyatitshearings,moved
[18]
tointerveneaspetitionerinG.R.No.179275.

On November 20, 2007, the Court resolved to consolidate G.R. Nos. 170338 and
[19]
179275.

ItmaybenotedthatwhilebothpetitionsinvolvetheHelloGarcirecordings,they
have different objectivesthe first is poised at preventing the playing of the tapes in the
House and their subsequent inclusion in the committee reports, and the second seeks to
prohibitandstoptheconductoftheSenateinquiryonthewiretappedconversation.

TheCourtdismissesthefirstpetition,G.R.No.170338,andgrantsthesecond,G.R.
No.179275.

I

Beforedelvingintothemeritsofthecase,theCourtshallfirstresolvetheissueon
thepartiesstanding,arguedatlengthintheirpleadings.

[20]
In Tolentino v. COMELEC, we explained that [l]egal standing or locus standi
referstoapersonalandsubstantialinterestinacasesuchthatthepartyhassustainedor
willsustaindirectinjurybecauseofthechallengedgovernmentalactxxx,thus,

generally, a party will be allowed to litigate only when (1) he can show that he has
personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal
9/11/2015 G.R. No. 170338
conductofthegovernment(2)theinjuryisfairlytraceabletothechallengedactionand
[21]
(3)theinjuryislikelytoberedressedbyafavorableaction.

Thegistofthequestionofstandingiswhetherapartyhasallegedsuchapersonalstakein
theoutcomeofthecontroversyastoassurethatconcreteadversenesswhichsharpensthe
presentationofissuesuponwhichthecourtsolargelydependsforilluminationofdifficult
[22]
constitutionalquestions.

However,consideringthatlocusstandiisamereproceduraltechnicality,theCourt,
[23]
inrecentcases,hasrelaxedthestringentdirectinjurytest.Davidv.MacapagalArroyo
articulatesthataliberalpolicyhasbeenobserved,allowingordinarycitizens,membersof
Congress, and civic organizations to prosecute actions involving the constitutionality or
[24] [25]
validity of laws, regulations and rulings. The fairly recent Chavez v. Gonzales
evenpermittedanonmemberofthebroadcastmedia,whofailedtoallegeapersonalstake
intheoutcomeofthecontroversy,tochallengetheactsoftheSecretaryofJusticeandthe
National Telecommunications Commission. The majority, in the said case, echoed the
currentpolicythatthisCourthasrepeatedlyandconsistentlyrefusedtowieldprocedural
barriersasimpedimentstoitsaddressingandresolvingseriouslegalquestionsthatgreatly
impactonpublicinterest,inkeepingwiththeCourtsdutyunderthe1987Constitutionto
determinewhetherornototherbranchesofgovernmenthavekeptthemselveswithinthe
limitsoftheConstitutionandthelaws,andthattheyhavenotabusedthediscretiongiven
[26]
tothem.

In G.R. No. 170338, petitioner Garcillano justifies his standing to initiate the
petitionbyallegingthatheisthepersonalludedtointheHelloGarcitapes.Further,his
waspubliclyidentifiedbythemembersoftherespondentcommitteesasoneofthevoices
[27]
in the recordings. Obviously, therefore, petitioner Garcillano stands to be directly
injured by the House committees actions and charges of electoral fraud. The Court
recognizeshisstandingtoinstitutethepetitionforprohibition.

9/11/2015 G.R. No. 170338
In G.R. No. 179275, petitioners Ranada and Agcaoili justify their standing by
allegingthattheyareconcernedcitizens,taxpayers,andmembersoftheIBP.Theyareof
the firm conviction that any attempt to use the Hello Garci tapes will further divide the
country.Theywishtoseethelegalandproperuseofpublicfundsthatwillnecessarilybe
defrayedintheensuingpublichearings.Theyareworriedbythecontinuousviolationof
the laws and individual rights, and the blatant attempt to abuse constitutional processes
[28]
throughtheconductoflegislativeinquiriespurportedlyinaidoflegislation.

IntervenorSaggeallegesviolationofhisrighttodueprocessconsideringthatheis
summoned to attend the Senate hearings without being apprised not only of his rights
therein through the publication of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in
AidofLegislation,butalsooftheintendedlegislationwhichunderpinstheinvestigation.
He further intervenes as a taxpayer bewailing the useless and wasteful expenditure of
[29]
publicfundsinvolvedintheconductofthequestionedhearings.

GiventhatpetitionersRanadaandAgcaoiliallegeaninterestintheexecutionofthe
[30]
laws and that intervenor Sagge asserts his constitutional right to due process, they
satisfy the requisite personal stake in the outcome of the controversy by merely being
citizensoftheRepublic.

[31]
FollowingtheCourtsrulinginFrancisco,Jr.v.TheHouseofRepresentatives,
wefindsufficientpetitionersRanadasandAgcaoilisandintervenorSaggesallegationthat
thecontinuousconductbytheSenateofthequestionedlegislativeinquirywillnecessarily
[32]
involve the expenditure of public funds. It should be noted that in Francisco, rights
personal to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. had been injured by the alleged
unconstitutionalactsoftheHouseofRepresentatives,yettheCourtgrantedstandingtothe
petitionersthereinfor,asinthiscase,theyinvariablyinvokedthevindicationoftheirown
rightsas taxpayers, members of Congress, citizens, individually or in a class suit, and
membersofthebarandofthelegalprofessionwhichwerealsosupposedlyviolatedbythe
9/11/2015 G.R. No. 170338
[33]
thereinassailedunconstitutionalacts.

Likewise, a reading of the petition in G.R. No. 179275 shows that the petitioners
and intervenor Sagge advance constitutional issues which deserve the attention of this
Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents. The issues are of
transcendentalandparamountimportancenotonlytothepublicbutalsototheBenchand
[34]
theBar,andshouldberesolvedfortheguidanceofall.

Thus, in the exercise of its sound discretion and given the liberal attitude it has
showninpriorcasesclimaxinginthemorerecentcaseofChavez,theCourtrecognizesthe
legalstandingofpetitionersRanadaandAgcaoiliandintervenorSagge.

II
The Court, however, dismisses G.R. No. 170338 for being moot and academic.
RepeatedlystressedinourpriordecisionsistheprinciplethattheexercisebythisCourtof
judicial power is limited to the determination and resolution of actual cases and
[35]
controversies. By actual cases, we mean existing conflicts appropriate or ripe for
judicial determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, for otherwise the decision of the
Courtwillamounttoanadvisoryopinion.Thepowerofjudicialinquirydoesnotextendto
hypotheticalquestionsbecauseanyattemptatabstractioncouldonlyleadtodialecticsand
[36]
barrenlegalquestionsandtosterileconclusionsunrelatedtoactualities. Neither will
theCourtdetermineamootquestioninacaseinwhichnopracticalreliefcanbegranted.
[37]
Acasebecomesmootwhenitspurposehasbecomestale. Itisunnecessarytoindulge
inacademicdiscussionofacasepresentingamootquestionasajudgmentthereoncannot
[38]
haveanypracticallegaleffector,inthenatureofthings,cannotbeenforced.

In G.R. No. 170338, petitioner Garcillano implores from the Court, as
aforementioned, the issuance of an injunctive writ to prohibit the respondent House
Committees from playing the tape recordings and from including the same in their
9/11/2015 G.R. No. 170338
committeereport.Helikewisepraysthatthesaidtapesbestrickenofftherecordsofthe
House proceedings. But the Court notes that the recordings were already played in the
[39]
House and heard by its members. There is also the widely publicized fact that the
committeereportsontheHelloGarciinquirywerecompletedandsubmittedtotheHouse
[40]
inplenarybytherespondentcommittees. Havingbeenovertakenbytheseevents,the
Garcillanopetitionhastobedismissedforbeingmootandacademic.Afterall,prohibition
isapreventiveremedytorestrainthedoingofanactabouttobedone,andnotintendedto
[41]
providearemedyforanactalreadyaccomplished.

III

AstothepetitioninG.R.No.179275,theCourtgrantsthesame.TheSenatecannot
beallowedtocontinuewiththeconductofthequestionedlegislativeinquirywithoutduly
publishedrulesofprocedure,inclearderogationoftheconstitutionalrequirement.

Section21,ArticleVIofthe1987Constitutionexplicitlyprovidesthat[t]heSenate
ortheHouseofRepresentatives,oranyofitsrespectivecommitteesmayconductinquiries
inaidoflegislationinaccordancewithitsdulypublishedrulesofprocedure.Therequisite
[42]
ofpublicationoftherulesisintendedtosatisfythebasicrequirementsofdueprocess.
Publication is indeed imperative, for it will be the height of injustice to punish or
otherwiseburdenacitizenforthetransgressionofalaworruleofwhichhehadnonotice
[43]
whatsoever, not even a constructive one. What constitutes publication is set forth in
Article 2 of the Civil Code, which provides that [l]aws shall take effect after 15 days
following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette, or in a
[44]
newspaperofgeneralcirculationinthePhilippines.

The respondents in G.R. No. 179275 admit in their pleadings and even on oral
argument that the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation
[45]
had been published in newspapers of general circulation only in 1995 and in 2006.
9/11/2015 G.R. No. 170338
With respect to the present Senate of the 14th Congress, however, of which the term of
half of its members commenced on June 30, 2007, no effort was undertaken for the
publicationoftheseruleswhentheyfirstopenedtheirsession.

Recently, the Court had occasion to rule on this very same question. In Neri v.
[46]
SenateCommitteeonAccountabilityofPublicOfficersandInvestigations, wesaid:

Fourth, we find merit in the argument of the OSG that respondent Committees
likewiseviolatedSection21ofArticleVIoftheConstitution,requiringthattheinquirybe
in accordance with the duly published rules of procedure. We quote the OSGs
explanation:

ThephrasedulypublishedrulesofprocedurerequirestheSenateof
everyCongresstopublishitsrulesofproceduregoverninginquiriesinaid
oflegislationbecauseeverySenateisdistinctfromtheonebeforeitorafter
it.SinceSenatorialelectionsareheldeverythree(3)yearsforonehalfof
theSenatesmembership,thecompositionoftheSenatealsochangesbythe
endofeachterm.EachSenatemaythusenactadifferentsetofrulesasit
maydeemfit.NothavingpublisheditsRules of Procedure, the subject
hearings in aid of legislation conducted by the 14th Senate, are
therefore,procedurallyinfirm.

JusticeAntonioT.Carpio,inhisDissentingandConcurringOpinion,reinforcesthis
rulingwiththefollowingrationalization:

ThepresentSenateunderthe1987Constitutionisnolongeracontinuinglegislativebody.
The present Senate has twentyfour members, twelve of whom are elected every three
yearsforatermofsixyearseach.Thus,thetermoftwelveSenatorsexpireseverythree
years,leavinglessthanamajorityofSenatorstocontinueintothenextCongress.The
1987Constitution,likethe1935Constitution,requiresamajorityofSenatorstoconstitute
aquorumtodobusiness.ApplyingthesamereasoninginArnaultv.Nazareno,theSenate
under the 1987 Constitution is not a continuing body because less than majority of the
SenatorscontinueintothenextCongress.TheconsequenceisthattheRulesofProcedure
[47]
mustberepublishedbytheSenateaftereveryexpiryofthetermoftwelveSenators.

[48]
ThesubjectwasexplainedwithgreaterlucidityinourResolution (OntheMotionfor
Reconsideration)inthesamecase,viz.:

OnthenatureoftheSenateasacontinuingbody,thisCourtseesfittoissueaclarification.
9/11/2015 G.R. No. 170338
Certainly, there is no debate that the Senate as an institution is continuing, as it is not

dissolved as an entity with each national election or change in the composition of its
members.However,intheconductofitsdaytodaybusinesstheSenateofeachCongress
actsseparatelyandindependentlyoftheSenateoftheCongressbeforeit.TheRulesofthe
Senateitselfconfirmsthiswhenitstates:

RULEXLIV
UNFINISHEDBUSINESS

SEC.123.Unfinishedbusinessattheendofthesessionshallbetakenupat
thenextsessioninthesamestatus.

All pending matters and proceedings shall terminate upon the
expiration of one (1) Congress, but may be taken by the succeeding
Congressasifpresentforthefirsttime.

Undeniably from the foregoing, all pending matters and proceedings, i.e., unpassed bills
andevenlegislativeinvestigations,oftheSenateofaparticularCongressareconsidered
terminatedupontheexpirationofthatCongressanditismerelyoptionalontheSenateof
thesucceedingCongresstotakeupsuchunfinishedmatters,notinthesamestatus,butas
ifpresentedforthefirsttime.Thelogicandpracticalityofsucharuleisreadilyapparent
considering that the Senate of the succeeding Congress (which will typically have a
different composition as that of the previous Congress) should not be bound by the acts
and deliberations of the Senate of which they had no part. If the Senate is a continuing
body even with respect to the conduct of its business, then pending matters will not be
deemed terminated with the expiration of one Congress but will, as a matter of course,
continueintothenextCongresswiththesamestatus.

ThisdichotomyofthecontinuityoftheSenateasaninstitutionandoftheoppositenature
of the conduct of its business is reflected in its Rules. The Rules of the Senate (i.e. the
Senatesmainrulesofprocedure)states:

RULELI
AMENDMENTSTO,ORREVISIONSOF,THERULES

SEC.136.AtthestartofeachsessioninwhichtheSenatorselectedinthe
preceding elections shall begin their term of office, the President may
endorsetheRulestotheappropriatecommitteeforamendmentorrevision.

The Rules may also be amended by means of a motion which should be
presented at least one day before its consideration, and the vote of the
majority of the Senators present in the session shall be required for its
approval.

RULELII
DATEOFTAKINGEFFECT

SEC.137.These Rules shall take effect on the date of their adoption and
shallremaininforceuntiltheyareamendedorrepealed.

Section136oftheSenateRulesquotedabovetakesintoaccountthenewcompositionof
9/11/2015 G.R. No. 170338
theSenateafteranelectionandthepossibilityoftheamendmentorrevisionoftheRulesat
thestartofeachsessioninwhichthenewlyelectedSenatorsshallbegintheirterm.

However,itisevidentthattheSenatehasdeterminedthatitsmainrulesareintendedtobe
validfromthedateoftheiradoptionuntiltheyareamendedorrepealed.Suchlanguageis
conspicuouslyabsentfromtheRules.TheRulessimplystate(t)heseRulesshalltakeeffect
seven (7) days after publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation. The latter
does not explicitly provide for the continued effectivity of such rules until they are
amendedorrepealed.InviewofthedifferenceinthelanguageofthetwosetsofSenate
rules,itcannotbepresumedthattheRules(onlegislativeinquiries)wouldcontinueinto
thenextCongress.TheSenateofthenextCongressmayeasilyadoptdifferentrulesforits
legislativeinquirieswhichcomewithintheruleonunfinishedbusiness.

The language of Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution requiring that the inquiry be
conductedinaccordancewiththedulypublishedrulesofprocedureiscategorical.It is
incumbent upon the Senate to publish the rules for its legislative inquiries in each
Congress or otherwise make the published rules clearly state that the same shall be
effectiveinsubsequent Congresses or until they are amended or repealed to sufficiently
putpubliconnotice.

If it was the intention of the Senate for its present rules on legislative inquiries to be
effectiveeveninthenextCongress,itcouldhaveeasilyadoptedthesamelanguageithad
usedinitsmainrulesregardingeffectivity.

Respondents justify their nonobservance of the constitutionally mandated
publication by arguing that the rules have never been amended since 1995 and, despite
that,theyarepublishedinbookletformavailabletoanyoneforfree,andaccessibletothe
[49]
publicattheSenatesinternetwebpage.

TheCourtdoesnotagree.Theabsenceofanyamendmenttotherulescannotjustify
theSenatesdefianceoftheclearandunambiguouslanguageofSection21,ArticleVIof
theConstitution.Theorganiclawinstructs,withoutmore,thattheSenateoritscommittees
mayconductinquiriesinaidoflegislationonlyinaccordancewithdulypublishedrulesof
procedure,anddoesnotmakeanydistinctionwhetherornottheseruleshaveundergone
amendmentsorrevision.Theconstitutionalmandatetopublishthesaidrulesprevailsover
anycustom,practiceortraditionfollowedbytheSenate.

Justice Carpios response to the same argument raised by the respondents is
illuminating:

9/11/2015 G.R. No. 170338
The publication of the Rules of Procedure in the website of the Senate, or in

pamphletformavailableattheSenate,isnotsufficientundertheTaadav.Tuveraruling
which requires publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general
circulation.TheRulesofProcedureevenprovidethattherulesshalltakeeffectseven(7)
daysafterpublicationintwo(2)newspapersofgeneralcirculation,precludinganyother
formofpublication.Publication in accordance with Taada is mandatory to comply with
thedueprocessrequirementbecausetheRulesofProcedureputapersonslibertyatrisk.A
personwhoviolatestheRulesofProcedurecouldbearrestedanddetainedbytheSenate.

[50]
The invocation by the respondents of the provisions of R.A. No. 8792,
otherwiseknownastheElectronicCommerceActof2000,tosupporttheirclaimofvalid
publicationthroughtheinternetisallthemoreincorrect.R.A.8792considersanelectronic
datamessageoranelectronicdocumentasthefunctionalequivalentofawrittendocument
[51]
only for evidentiary purposes. In other words, the law merely recognizes the
admissibilityinevidence(fortheirbeingtheoriginal)ofelectronicdatamessagesand/or
[52]
electronic documents. It does not make the internet a medium for publishing laws,
rulesandregulations.

Given this discussion, the respondent Senate Committees, therefore, could not, in
violationoftheConstitution,useitsunpublishedrulesinthelegislativeinquirysubjectof
theseconsolidatedcases.TheconductofinquiriesinaidoflegislationbytheSenatehasto
bedeferreduntilitshallhavecausedthepublicationoftherules,becauseitcandosoonly
inaccordancewithitsdulypublishedrulesofprocedure.

Veryrecently,theSenatecausedthepublicationoftheSenateRulesofProcedure
Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation in the October 31, 2008 issues of Manila
BulletinandMalaya.Whilewetakejudicialnoticeofthisfact,therecentpublicationdoes
notcuretheinfirmityoftheinquirysoughttobeprohibitedbytheinstantpetitions.Insofar
as the consolidated cases are concerned, the legislative investigation subject thereof still
couldnotbeundertakenbytherespondentSenateCommittees,becausenopublishedrules
governedit,inclearcontraventionoftheConstitution.

Withtheforegoingdisquisition,theCourtfindsitunnecessarytodiscusstheother
9/11/2015 G.R. No. 170338
issuesraisedintheconsolidatedpetitions.

WHEREFORE,thepetitioninG.R.No.170338isDISMISSED,andthepetition
in G.R. No. 179275 is GRANTED. Let a writ of prohibition be issued enjoining the
Senate of the Republic of the Philippines and/or any of its committees from conducting
anyinquiryinaidoflegislationcenteredontheHelloGarcitapes.

SOORDERED.

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

ANTONIOT.CARPIO MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ

(OnLeave)
RENATOC.CORONA CONCHITACARPIOMORALES

ADOLFOS.AZCUNA DANTEO.TINGA
9/11/2015 G.R. No. 170338

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.

RUBENT.REYES TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,Icertifythattheconclusionsinthe
abovedecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriter
oftheopinionoftheCourt.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

*Onleave.
[1]
Rollo(G.R.No.179275),p.168.
[2]
Rollo(G.R.No.170338),pp.79.
[3]
Id.at9.
[4]
Id.at138.
[5]
Id.at3638.
[6]
Rollo(G.R.No.179275),pp.215220.
9/11/2015 G.R. No. 170338
[7]
Id.at169.
[8]
An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of the Privacy of Communications and for
OtherPurposes.
[9]
Rollo(G.R.No.179275),pp.169170.
[10]
Id.at317.
[11]
Id.at713.
[12]
Id.at24.
[13]
Id.at44.
[14]
MemorandumofRespondentsIntervenors,p.6.
[15]
Rollo(G.R.No.179275),pp.6870.
[16]
Id.at7190.
[17]
Id.at62.TheCourtidentifiedthefollowingissuesfordiscussionintheOctober2,2007OralArgument:
1.Whetherthepetitionershavelocusstanditobringthissuit.
2. Whether the Rules of Procedure of the Senate and the Senate Committees governing the conduct of inquiries in aid of
legislationhavebeenpublished,inaccordancewithSection21,ArticleVIoftheConstitution.Corollarily:
(a)WhethertheseRulesmustbepublishedbyeveryCongress.
(b)Whatmode/sofpublicationwillcomplywiththeconstitutionalrequirement.
3. Whether the inquiry, which is centered on the socalled Garci tapes, violates Section 3, Article III of the
Constitutionand/orRepublicActNo.4200.(Id.at66.)
[18]
MotionforLeavetoInterveneandPetitioninInterventionfiledonOctober26,2007.
[19]
ResolutiondatedNovember20,2007.
[20]
465Phil.385,402(2004).
[21]
Tolentinov.CommissiononElections,id.
[22]
ProvinceofBatangasv.Romulo,G.R.No.152774,May27,2004,429SCRA736,755.
[23]
G.R.Nos.171396,171409,171485,171483,171400,171489and171424,May3,2006,489SCRA160.
[24]
Davidv.MacapagalArroyo,id.at218.
[25]
G.R.No.168338,February15,2008,545SCRA441.
[26]
Id.
[27]
ReplyinG.R.No.170338,pp.3637.
[28]
Rollo(G.R.No.179275),p.4.
[29]
PetitioninIntervention,p.3.
[30]
Davidv.MacapagalArroyo,supranote23,at223.
[31]
460Phil.830(2003).
[32]
Francisco,Jr.v.TheHouseofRepresentatives,id.at897.
[33]
Francisco,Jr.v.TheHouseofRepresentatives,supranote31,at895.
[34]
Kilosbayan,Inc.v.Guingona,Jr.,G.R.No.113375,May5,1994,232SCRA110,139.
[35]
Dumlao v. COMELEC, 184 Phil. 369, 377 (1980). This case explains the standards that have to be followed in the
exercise of the power of judicial review, namely: (1) the existence of an appropriate case (2) an interest personal and
substantialbythepartyraisingtheconstitutionalquestion(3)thepleathatthefunctionbeexercisedattheearliestopportunity
9/11/2015 G.R. No. 170338
and(4)thenecessitythattheconstitutionalquestionbepasseduponinordertodecidethecase.
[36]
LaBugalBlaanTribalAssociation,Inc.v.Ramos,465Phil.860,889890(2004).
[37]
Rufinov.Endriga,G.R.Nos.139554and139565,July21,2006,496SCRA13,46.
[38]
Lanuza,Jr.v.Yuchengco,G.R.No.157033,March28,2005,454SCRA130,138.
[39]
Rollo(G.R.No.170338),p.9.
[40]
Seenews article Separate findings, no closure by Michael Lim Umbac published in The Philippine Daily Inquirer on
March29,2006Newsitem5HousecommitteesinGarciprobefilereportonMondaypublishedinTheManilaBulletinon
March25,2006.
[41]
Simon,Jr.v.CommissiononHumanRights,G.R.No.100150,January5,1994,229SCRA117,135136Agustinv.De
laFuente,84Phil.515,517(1949).
[42]
Bernas,The1987ConstitutionofthePhilippines,ACommentary,1996ed.,p.679.
[43]
Taadav.Tuvera,220Phil.422,432433(1985).
[44]
AsamendedonJune18,1987byExecutiveOrderNo.200entitledProvidingforthePublicationofLawsEitherinthe
OfficialGazetteorinaNewspaperofGeneralCirculationinthePhilippinesasaRequirementfortheirEffectivity.
[45]
Rollo(G.R.No.179275),p.179MemorandumofRespondentsIntervenors,pp.910.
[46]
G.R.No.180643,March25,2008,549SCRA77,135136.
[47]
Id.at297298.
[48]
DatedSeptember4,2008.
[49]
TSN,OralArguments,March4,2008,(G.R.No.179275),pp.413414.
[50]
EntitledAnActProvidingfortheRecognitionandUseofElectronicCommercialandNonCommercialTransactionsand
Documents,PenaltiesforUnlawfulUseThereofandForOtherPurposes,approvedonJune14,2000.
[51]
MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation, G.R. No. 170633, October 15, 2007, 536 SCRA 408.
(Emphasissupplied.)
[52]
Sections6,7and10ofR.A.No.8792read:
Sec.6.LegalRecognitionofDataMessages.Informationshallnotbedeniedlegaleffect,validityorenforceability
solelyonthegroundsthatitisinthedatamessagepurportingtogiverisetosuchlegaleffect,orthatitismerelyreferredtoin
thatelectronicdatamessage.
Sec.7.Legal Recognition of Electronic Documents. Electronic documents shall have the legal effect, validity or
enforceabilityasanyotherdocumentorlegalwriting,and
(a)Wherethelawrequiresadocumenttobeinwriting,thatrequirementismetbyanelectronicdocumentifthesaidelectronic
documentmaintainsitsintegrityandreliability,andcanbeauthenticatedsoastobeusableforsubsequentreference,inthat
(i) The electronic document has remained complete and unaltered, apart from the addition of any
endorsementandanyauthorizedchange,oranychangewhicharisesinthenormalcourseofcommunication,
storageanddisplayand
(ii)Theelectronicdocumentisreliableinthelightofthepurposeforwhichitwasgeneratedandin
thelightofalltherelevantcircumstances.
(b)Paragraph(a)applieswhethertherequirementthereinisintheformofanobligationorwhetherthelawsimply
providesconsequencesforthedocumentnotbeingpresentedorretainedinitsoriginalform.
(c)Wherethelawrequiresthatadocumentbepresentedorretainedinitsoriginalform,thatrequirementismetbyan
electronicdocumentif
(i)Thereexistsareliableassuranceastotheintegrityofthedocumentfromthetimewhenitwas
firstgeneratedinitsfinalformand
(ii) That document is capable of being displayed to the person to whom it is to be presented:
Provided, That no provision of this Act shall apply to vary any and all requirements of existing laws on
formalitiesrequiredintheexecutionofdocumentsfortheirvalidity.
For evidentiary purposes, an electronic document shall be the functional equivalent of a written document under
9/11/2015 G.R. No. 170338
existinglaws.
ThisActdoesnotmodifyanystatutoryrulerelatingtotheadmissibilityofelectronicdatamessagesorelectronicdocuments,
excepttherulesrelatingtoauthenticationandbestevidence.
Sec.10.OriginalDocuments.(1)Wherethelawrequiresinformationtobepresentedorretainedinitsoriginalform,
thatrequirementismetbyanelectronicdatamessageorelectronicdocumentif:
(a)Theintegrityoftheinformationfromthetimewhenitwasfirstgeneratedinitsfinalform,as
anelectronicdatamessageorelectronicdocumentisshownbyevidencealiundeorotherwiseand
(b) Where it is required that information be presented, that the information is capable of being
displayedtothepersontowhomitistobepresented.
(2) Paragraph(1)applieswhethertherequirementthereinisintheformofanobligationorwhetherthelawsimply
providesconsequencesfortheinformationnotbeingpresentedorretainedinitsoriginalform.
(3)Forthepurposesofsubparagraph(a)ofparagraph(1):
(a)thecriteriaforassessingintegrityshallbewhethertheinformationhasremainedcompleteand
unaltered,apartfromtheadditionofanyendorsementandanychangewhicharisesinthenormalcourseof
communication,storageanddisplayand
(b) thestandardofreliabilityrequiredshallbeassessedinthelightofthepurposeforwhichthe
informationwasgeneratedandinthelightofallrelevantcircumstances.

Garcillano V House

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Garcillano V House

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

9/11/2015 G.R. No.

On motion of Senator Francis Pangilinan, Senator Lacsons speech was referred to

Certainly, there is no debate that the Senate as an institution is continuing, as it is not

The publication of the Rules of Procedure in the website of the Senate, or in

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen