Facts:
More than three years ago, tapes ostensibly containing a wiretapped
conversation purportedly between the President of the Philippines and a high-ranking
official of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) surfaced. They captured
unprecedented public attention and thrust the country into a controversy that
placed the legitimacy of the present administration on the line, and resulted
in the near-collapse of the Arroyo government. The tapes, notoriously referred
to as the "Hello Garci" tapes, allegedly contained the President’s
instructions to COMELEC Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano to manipulate in her
favor results of the 2004 presidential elections. These recordings were to
become the subject of heated legislative hearings conducted separately by
committees of both Houses of Congress.
In the House of Representatives (House), on June 8, 2005, then Minority
Floor Leader Francis G. Escudero delivered a privilege speech, "Tale of
Two Tapes," and set in 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. But on July
5, 2005, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Reynaldo Wycoco, Atty.
Alan Paguia and the lawyer of former NBI Deputy Director Samuel Ong submitted
to the respondent House Committees seven alleged "original" tape
recordings of the supposed three-hour taped conversation. After prolonged and
impassioned debate by the committee members on the admissibility and
authenticity of the recordings, the tapes were eventually played in the
chambers of the House.
Alarmed by these developments, petitioner Virgilio O. Garcillano (Garcillano)
filed with this Court a Petition for Prohibition and Injunction, with Prayer
for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction docketed
as G.R. No. 170338 praying that the respondent House Committees be restrained
from using these tape recordings of the "illegally obtained"
wiretapped conversations in their committee reports and for any other purpose.
He further implored that 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. Without reaching its denouement, the House discussion and
debates on the "Garci tapes" abruptly stopped.
After more than two years of quiescence, Senator Panfilo Lacson roused
the slumbering issue with a privilege speech, "The Lighthouse That Brought
Darkness." In his discourse, Senator Lacson promised to provide the public
"the whole unvarnished truth – the what’s, when’s, where’s, who’s and
why’s" of the alleged wiretap, and sought an inquiry into the perceived
willingness of telecommunications providers to participate in nefarious
wiretapping activities. On motion of Senator Francis Pangilinan, Senator
Lacson’s speech was referred to the Senate Committee on National Defense and
Security, chaired by Senator Rodolfo Biazon, who had previously filed two bills seeking to regulate the sale, purchase
and use of wiretapping equipment and to prohibit the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) from performing electoral duties.
In the Senate’s plenary session the following day, a lengthy debate
ensued when Senator Richard Gordon aired his concern on the possible
transgression of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4200 if
the body were to conduct a legislative inquiry on the matter. On August 28,
2007, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago delivered a privilege speech,
articulating her considered view that the Constitution absolutely bans the use,
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 illegal wiretapping
of public officials.
On September 6, 2007, petitioners Santiago Ranada and Oswaldo Agcaoili,
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 Injunction, docketed as G.R. No. 179275, seeking to
bar the Senate from conducting its scheduled legislative inquiry. They argued
in the main that the intended legislative inquiry violates R.A. No. 4200 and
Section 3, Article III of the Constitution.
As the Court did not issue an injunctive writ, the Senate proceeded with
its public hearings on the "Hello Garci" tapes on September 7, 17 and
October 1, 2007.
On November 20, 2007, the Court resolved to consolidate G.R. Nos. 170338
and 179275. The Court dismisses the first petition, G.R. No. 170338, and grants
the second, G.R. No. 179275.
Issue:
Whether online publication of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing
the Inquiries in the said case in aid of legislation is sufficient?
Held:
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.
Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that "[t]he
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." The requisite
of publication of the rules is intended to satisfy the basic requirements of
due process. Publication is indeed imperative, for it will be the height of
injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a
law or rule of which he had no notice 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 newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines."
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 had been published in newspapers of general circulation only in
1995 and in 2006. 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 publication of these rules when they first opened their session.
Recently, the Court had occasion to rule on this very same question. In Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, the Court said:
Fourth, we find merit in the argument of the OSG that respondent Committees likewise violated Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution, requiring that the inquiry be in accordance with the "duly published rules of procedure." We quote the OSG’s explanation:
The phrase "duly published rules of procedure" requires the Senate of every Congress to publish its rules of procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation because every Senate is distinct from the one before it or after it. Since Senatorial elections are held every three (3) years for one-half of the Senate’s membership, the composition of the Senate also changes by the end of each term. Each Senate may thus enact a different set of rules as it may deem fit. Not having published its Rules of Procedure, the subject hearings in aid of legislation conducted by the 14th Senate, are therefore, procedurally infirm.
The invocation by the respondents of the provisions of R.A. No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, to support their claim of valid publication through the internet is all the more incorrect. R.A. 8792 considers an electronic data message or an electronic document as the functional equivalent of a written document only for evidentiary purposes. In other words, the law merely recognizes the admissibility in evidence (for their being the original) of electronic data messages and/or electronic documents. It does not make the internet a medium for publishing laws, rules and regulations.
Recently, the Court had occasion to rule on this very same question. In Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, the Court said:
Fourth, we find merit in the argument of the OSG that respondent Committees likewise violated Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution, requiring that the inquiry be in accordance with the "duly published rules of procedure." We quote the OSG’s explanation:
The phrase "duly published rules of procedure" requires the Senate of every Congress to publish its rules of procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation because every Senate is distinct from the one before it or after it. Since Senatorial elections are held every three (3) years for one-half of the Senate’s membership, the composition of the Senate also changes by the end of each term. Each Senate may thus enact a different set of rules as it may deem fit. Not having published its Rules of Procedure, the subject hearings in aid of legislation conducted by the 14th Senate, are therefore, procedurally infirm.
The invocation by the respondents of the provisions of R.A. No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, to support their claim of valid publication through the internet is all the more incorrect. R.A. 8792 considers an electronic data message or an electronic document as the functional equivalent of a written document only for evidentiary purposes. In other words, the law merely recognizes the admissibility in evidence (for their being the original) of electronic data messages and/or electronic documents. It does not make the internet a medium for publishing laws, rules and regulations.
Given this discussion, the respondent Senate Committees, therefore, could not,
in violation of the Constitution, use its unpublished rules in the legislative
inquiry subject of these consolidated cases. The conduct of inquiries in aid of
legislation by the Senate has to be deferred until it shall have caused the
publication of the rules, because it can do so only "in accordance with
its duly published rules of procedure."
Very recently, the Senate caused the publication of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation in the October 31, 2008 issues of Manila Bulletin and Malaya. While we take judicial notice of this fact, the recent publication does not cure the infirmity of the inquiry sought to be prohibited by the instant petitions. Insofar as the consolidated cases are concerned, the legislative investigation subject thereof still could not be undertaken by the respondent Senate Committees, because no published rules governed it, in clear contravention of the Constitution.
__________________________
Very recently, the Senate caused the publication of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation in the October 31, 2008 issues of Manila Bulletin and Malaya. While we take judicial notice of this fact, the recent publication does not cure the infirmity of the inquiry sought to be prohibited by the instant petitions. Insofar as the consolidated cases are concerned, the legislative investigation subject thereof still could not be undertaken by the respondent Senate Committees, because no published rules governed it, in clear contravention of the Constitution.
__________________________
Full case available at: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html
No comments:
Post a Comment