Garcillano V House of Rep

G.R. No. 170338 December 23, 2008

Facts:

 Tapes containing a wiretapped conversation between the President of the Philippines and a
COMELEC official surfaced, known as the "Hello Garci" tapes.

 The House of Representatives conducted an investigation led by respondent House Committees,

where "original" tape recordings were submitted and played.

 After debates, the House Committees decided to suspend the hearings but prepared committee
reports based on the recordings.

 Petitioner Virgilio O. Garcillano filed a Petition to prohibit the House Committees from using the
wiretapped conversations in their reports.

Issue: Whether the House Committees can use the "illegally obtained" wiretapped conversations in their
committee reports.

Supreme Court's Ruling: No.

Explanation:

1. Standing of Parties:

 Locus standi (legal standing) requires a personal and substantial interest.

 Petitioner Garcillano has standing as he is directly affected by the wiretapped

conversations.

 Petitioners Ranada and Agcaoili, as concerned citizens and taxpayers, and intervenor
Sagge, as a member of the ISAFP, have standing.

2. Mootness of G.R. No. 170338:

 The Court dismisses G.R. No. 170338 as moot since the House already played the
recordings and submitted committee reports.

3. Constitutional Violation by Senate in G.R. No. 179275:

 Senate violated Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution, which requires inquiries to be
in accordance with duly published rules of procedure.

 The Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation were not
published for the 14th Congress, violating due process.

 The Senate cannot continue the legislative inquiry until it publishes the rules as
mandated by the Constitution.
Result: The Court dismisses G.R. No. 170338 as moot and grants G.R. No. 179275, issuing a writ of
prohibition against the Senate from conducting an inquiry on the "Hello Garci" tapes until it publishes
the required rules.

Laws and Provisions:

 Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

 The Court cites Tolentino v. COMELEC, David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, Chavez v. Gonzales, Neri v.
Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, R.A. No. 4200, and
R.A. No. 8792 in its explanation.