Garcillano vs House of Representatives

GR No. 170338/ GR. No. 179275, December 23, 2008

GR NO. 170338
PETITIONERS Virgilio O. Garcillano
RESPONDENTS House of Representatives
GR NO. 179275
PETITIONERS Santiago Javier Ranada and Oswaldo Agcaoili
RESPONDENTS The Senate of the Republic of the Philippines
Nachura, J. | G.R. No. 170338/ G.R. No. 179275| When Law Takes Effect
Ivan Zapanta (digest writer)

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.

SUMMARY. This case is about the infamous “Hello Garci” tape which involves Virgilio O. Garcillano
and the former president, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Intervenor Sagge alleges violation of his right to
due process considering that he is 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 Aid of Legislation, but also of the intended legislation which underpins the investigation.
MAIN DOCTRINE. As of Art. 2 of the New Civil Code (NCC), laws shall take effect after fifteen days
following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette, or in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines. The Rules of Procedure posted on the Senate website and the
pamphlets available at the Senate does not follow the Tanada vs Tuvera ruling.

FACTS
 On June 8, 2005, Senator Francis G. Escudero delivered a privileged speech entitled, “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.
 Several versions of the wiretapped conversations emerged.
 The recordings contain conversations regarding the manipulation of the 2004 presidential election
results in favor of Macapagal-Arroyo.
 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.
 Garcillano filed with this Court a Petition for Prohibition and Injunction, with Prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. He prayed to the court that the illegally
obtained recordings be restrained from being used by the respondent, House of Representatives
(HOR). The House discussion regarding the issue abruptly stopped afterwards.

1|Block 4
 Two years after, the then senator, Panfilo Lacson, roused the issue with his privileged speech, “The
Lighthouse that Brought Darkness.” He 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.
 Sen. Miriam Defensor- Santiago delivered a privileged speech regarding that the Constitution 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.
 Intervenor Maj. Lindsay Rex Sagge, a member of ISAFP, alleges violation of his right to due process
considering that he is 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 Aid
of Legislation, but also of the intended legislation which underpins the investigation.

ISSUE
1. WON the publication of the Rules of Procedures Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation through
the Senate’s website and pamphlets, satisfies the due process requirement of law.

HELD
No. According to Article 2 of the New Civil Code (NCC), 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, unless it is otherwise provided. In the case at bar, the Senate did not
comply with the publication requirements as stated in Tanada vs Tuvera.

The Senate claims that they have the Rules of Procedure available in both online and as a pamphlet,
but their invocation 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.

The Court also ruled that by not having published its Rules of Procedure, the subject hearings in aid of
legislation conducted by the 14th Senate, are therefore, procedurally infirm. That is because the Senate
that published the Rules of Procedure on 1995 and 2006 are different from the current Senate.

WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 170338 is DISMISSED, and the petition 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 any inquiry in aid of legislation centered on the "Hello
Garci" tapes.

NOTES
 This is the case involving the infamous “Hello Garci” tapes.
2|Block 4
 G.R. Nos. 170338 and 179275 were consolidated together.
 It may be noted that while both petitions involve the "Hello Garci" recordings, they have different
objectives–the 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 prohibit and stop the conduct of the
Senate inquiry on the wiretapped conversation.
 Since we are focusing on Art. 2 of the NCC, we will focus on Maj. Lindsay Rex Sagge, the intervenor.
 R.A. No. 4200 - AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE TAPPING AND OTHER RELATED VIOLATIONS
OF THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
 The Court deemed G.R. No 170338 as moot and academic because the recordings have been
played already in the House and were heard by its members.
 The Senate subsequently 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.

3|Block 4