Garcillano v. HOR

Garcillano v.
HOR (2008)
Nachura, J.
Admissibility
FACTS:
 June 8, 2005 – Minority Floor Leader Chiz Escudero gave a privileged speech (Tale of Two Tapes) which
prompted the congressional investigation on the Hello, Garci tapes.
o The NBI submitted to the respondent House Committees seven alleged "original" tape recordings of the
supposed three-hour taped conversation which were eventually played in the chambers of the House.
 August 3, 2005 - the respondent House Committees decided to suspend the hearings indefinitely. Nevertheless,
they decided to prepare committee reports based on the said recordings and the testimonies of the resource
persons.
 Petitioner Virgilio O. Garcillano (Garcillano) filed with the SC a Petition for Prohibition and Injunction, with
Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. He prayed that:
o The House Committees be restrained from using these tape recordings of the "illegally obtained"
wiretapped conversations in their committee reports and for any other purpose.
o The said recordings and any reference 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
proceedings.
 The House proceedings abruptly stopped.
 More than 2 years later, Senator Panfilo Lacson gave a privileged speech (The Lighthouse that Brought Darkness)
in Senate (14th Congress), prompting a referral to the Senate Committee on Defense and Security of the possibility
of a renewed inquiry on the tapes.
 Petitioners Santiago Ranada and Oswaldo Agcaoili, retired justices of the CA, filed before the SC a Petition for
Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction, seeking to bar the Senate from conducting its scheduled legislative inquiry mainly on the ground that
it will violate the Anti-Wiretapping Law and the 1987 Constitution.
o No TRO was issued by the Court so the senate hearings proceeded.
 The SC consolidated the Garcillano petition, which seeks to prevent the playing of the tapes in the House and
their subsequent inclusion in the committee reports with the Ranada/Agcaoili petition, which seeks to prohibit
and stop the conduct of the Senate inquiry on the wiretapped conversation.
ISSUE + RATIO
WON the petitions have merit.
HELD: The Court dismisses the Garcillano petition and grants the Ranada/Agcaoili petition.
First, the Court resolves the issue on standing.

 They all have standing.
o Garcillano – he stands to be directly affected by the house committees’ actions and charges of electoral
fraud.
o Ranada and Agcaoili – have standing as concerned citizens, taxpayers, and members of the bar.
Second, the Court dismisses the Garcillano petition for being moot and academic.
 The Court will not determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief can be granted.
 The Hello, Garci tapes were already played in the House and heard by its members. There is also the widely
publicized fact that the committee reports on the Hello Garci inquiry were completed and submitted to the House
in plenary by the respondent committees.
 Having been overtaken by these events, the Garcillano petition has to be dismissed for being moot and academic.
 Prohibition is a preventive remedy to restrain the doing of an act about to be done, and not intended to provide a
remedy for an act already accomplished.
Court grants the Ranada/Agcaoili petition. The Senate cannot be allowed to continue with the conduct of the
questioned legislative inquiry without duly published rules of procedure, in clear derogation of the constitutional
requirement.
 The requisite of publication of the rules is intended to satisfy the basic requirements of due process.
o Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that the Senate or the House of
Representatives, or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in
accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.
o What constitutes publication - Laws shall take effect after 15 days following the completion of their
publication either in the Official Gazette, or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines
(Art.2, Civil Code).
 While the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation were duly published in 1995 and
2006, the Rules of the present Senate of the 14th Congress have not undergone publication.
o The Senate under the 1987 Constitution is not a continuing body because less than majority of the
Senators continue into the next Congress. The consequence is that the Rules of Procedure must be
republished by the Senate after every expiry of the term of twelve Senators.
 Respondents justify their non-observance of the publication requirement by arguing that the have not been
amended since 1995 and that they are published in booklet form available to anyone for free, and accessible to the
public at the Senates internet web page.
o The Court does not agree. The absence of any amendment to the rules cannot justify the Senates
defiance of the clear and unambiguous language of Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution. It does not
make any distinction whether or not these rules have undergone amendments or revision. The
constitutional mandate to publish the said rules prevails over any custom, practice or tradition followed
by the Senate.
 [RELEVANT] The invocation by the respondents of the provisions of R.A. No. 8792 (Electronic Commerce Act
of 2000), to support their claim of valid publication through the internet is all the more incorrect.
o R.A. 8792 considers an electronic data message or an electronic document as the functional equivalent of
a written document only for evidentiary purposes.
o In other words, the law merely recognizes the admissibility in evidence (for their being the original) of
electronic data messages and/or electronic documents.
o It does not make the internet a medium for publishing laws, rules and regulations.
 The recent publication of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation in the October
31, 2008 issues of Manila Bulletin and Malaya does not cure the infirmity of the inquiry sought to be prohibited
by the instant petitions.

Garcillano v. HOR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Garcillano v. HOR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Garcillano v. HOR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Garcillano v.

First, the Court resolves the issue on standing.

You might also like