G.R. No. 170338 - Garcillano vs. House of Representatives Committees on Public Information

Case Digest (G.R. No. 170338)
Expanded Legal Reasoning

Facts:

Genesis of the “Hello Garci” controversy and House proceedings

In 2005, recordings known as the “Hello Garci” tapes surfaced, allegedly containing wiretapped conversations between President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and COMELEC Commissioner Virgilio O. Garcillano concerning manipulation of the 2004 presidential election results. These tapes triggered public furor and separate legislative inquiries in both Houses of Congress.
On June 8, 2005, Rep. Francis G. Escudero delivered a privilege speech (“Tale of Two Tapes”), prompting a joint House inquiry by the Committees on Public Information, Public Order and Safety, National Defense and Security, Information and Communications Technology, and Suffrage and Electoral Reforms.
Several versions of the recordings emerged during the inquiry. On July 5, 2005, NBI Director Reynaldo Wycoco, Atty. Alan Paguia, and counsel for former NBI Deputy Director Samuel Ong submitted seven alleged “original” tape recordings of the purported three-hour conversation. After debate on admissibility and authenticity, the tapes were played in the House.
On August 3, 2005, the House Committees suspended hearings indefinitely but prepared committee reports based on the tapes and testimonies. Reports were later submitted to the House in plenary.

First petition (G.R. No. 170338) by Commissioner Garcillano

Garcillano filed a Petition for Prohibition and Injunction with prayer for TRO/WPI, seeking to restrain the House Committees from using the allegedly illegally obtained wiretap recordings in committee reports or any House proceeding; to strike the recordings and references thereto from the records; and to prevent further use of the recordings.

Revival of the issue in the Senate and second petition (G.R. No. 179275)

In 2007, Sen. Panfilo Lacson’s privilege speech (“The Lighthouse That Brought Darkness”) revived the issue and sought an inquiry, including into telcos’ alleged participation in illegal wiretapping. The speech was referred to the Senate Committee on National Defense and Security chaired by Sen. Rodolfo Biazon, who had pending bills regulating wiretapping equipment and prohibiting AFP election duties.
Senators debated possible violations of R.A. No. 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Law). Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago argued that the Constitution absolutely bans use, possession, replay, or communication of the “Hello Garci” contents, but recommended investigation into possible ISAFP/PNP involvement in illegal wiretapping.
Retired CA Justices Santiago Javier Ranada and Oswaldo D. Agcaoili filed a Petition for Prohibition with prayer for TRO/WPI to bar the Senate from conducting the inquiry, alleging violation of R.A. No. 4200 and Section 3, Article III of the Constitution. No injunctive relief issued; the Senate proceeded with public hearings on September 7 and 17, and October 1, 2007.
Senators Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino, Rodolfo Biazon, Panfilo Lacson, Loren Legarda, Jamby Madrigal, and Antonio Trillanes intervened as respondents. The Court held oral arguments.
On October 26, 2007, Maj. Lindsay Rex Sagge (ISAFP), a summoned resource person, sought to intervene as petitioner, alleging due process violations from being compelled to attend hearings without publication of the Senate’s Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation and without clarity on intended legislation.
On November 20, 2007, the Supreme Court consolidated G.R. Nos. 170338 and 179275. The petitions had distinct aims: the first sought to prevent playing and use of the tapes in House proceedings; the second sought to prohibit and stop the Senate inquiry centered on the tapes.

Issues:

Locus standi

Whether Garcillano has standing to challenge the House Committees’ use of the tapes given his identification as a party in the recordings and the personal injury he alleges.
Whether Ranada and Agcaoili (as citizens, taxpayers, IBP members) and Sagge (as a summoned resource person and taxpayer) have standing to question the Senate inquiry and the use of public funds, and to assert due process concerns.

Mootness with respect to G.R. No. 170338

Whether prohibition can still restrain House Committees from playing and using the tapes after they have already been played and committee reports submitted.

Constitutional validity of the Senate inquiry procedures in G.R. No. 179275

Whether Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution requires the Senate to conduct inquiries “in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure,” and whether such rules must be published by every Congress in light of the Senate’s non-continuing character for purposes of business.
Whether prior publications of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation in 1995 and 2006 suffice for the 14th Congress absent fresh publication upon its opening.
Whether publication via the Senate website or booklet form satisfies the constitutional and statutory publication requirement, and whether the Electronic Commerce Act (R.A. No. 8792) validates internet publication as a substitute.
Whether the contemplated inquiry violates R.A. No. 4200 and/or Section 3, Article III of the Constitution because it would center on allegedly illegally obtained wiretapped communications.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (G.R. No. 170338) Core Legal Reasoning Expanded

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 170338) Expanded Legal Reasoning

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 170338)
Core Legal Reasoning

Expanded

Case Digest (G.R. No. 170338)
Expanded Legal Reasoning