Professional Documents
Culture Documents
_______________
* EN BANC.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
171
172
173
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
Same; Same; The absence of any amendment to the rules cannot justify
the Senate’s defiance of the clear and unambiguous language of Section 21,
Article VI of the Constitution; The constitutional mandate to publish the
said rules prevails over any custom, practice or tradition followed by the
Senate.—Respondents justify their non-observance of the constitutionally
mandated publication by arguing that the rules have never been amended
since 1995 and, despite that, they are published in booklet form available to
anyone for free, and accessible to the public at the Senate’s internet web
page. The Court does not agree. The absence of any amendment to the rules
cannot justify the Senate’s defiance of the clear and unambiguous language
of Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution. The organic law instructs,
without more, that the Senate or its committees may conduct inquiries in aid
of legislation only in accordance with duly published rules of procedure,
and 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.
Same; Same; Statutes; Internet; Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8792,
otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, does not make
the internet a medium for publishing laws, rules and regulations.—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.
Same; Same; The recent publication does not cure the infirmity of the
inquiry sought to be prohibited by the instant petitions.—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
174
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
175
published in the 14th Congress. In fact, the Court ruled on the issue of
executive privilege raised in said proceedings. It struck down only the
January 30 Contempt Order against therein petitioner Neri for failure to
comply with Section 18 of the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries,
while at the same time holding these rules as constitutionally infirm for
want of publication.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
Same; Same; The continuing effectivity of the Senate Rules from one
Congress to the next, which the Court acknowledged in its September 4 Neri
Resolution, evinces the nature of the Senate as a continuing body governed
by its continuing Senate Rules.—The continuing effectivity of the Senate
Rules from one Congress to the next, which the Court acknowledged in
its September 4 Neri Resolution, evinces the nature of the Senate as a
continuing body governed by its continuing Senate Rules. If the Senate
were not a continuing body, there would be no reason for the Senate Rules
to likewise have a continuing effect. In contradistinction, the effectivity of
the Rules of Proceedings of the House of Representatives (House Rules)—
which is admittedly not a continuing body, as the terms of all congressmen
end at the same time—terminates upon the expiration of one Congress.
Thus, Rule 1, Section 1 of the 14th Congress House Rules adopted on
November 20, 2007 reflects the practice of the House of Representatives of
adopting rules of proceedings on its first meeting and organization upon the
opening of a succeeding Congress.
Same; Same; As a general rule, one-time publication suffices to satisfy
the due process requirement to inform the public of a rule that would govern
it and affect its rights.—As a general rule, one-time publication suffices to
satisfy the due process requirement to inform the public of a rule that would
govern it and affect its rights. It is not uncommon for laws and rules to
provide that they shall take effect upon a certain date following publication
in a newspaper of general circulation without having to state that they “shall
remain in force until they are amended or repealed” for them to have
continuing effect. These laws and rules are published only once, and yet
they continue to be in force. The Court itself employs this language in its
rules as shown in the recently promulgated Rule on the Writ of Habeas
Data and Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
176
177
Same; Same; Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4200 provides for exceptions
when wiretapping is allowed by written order of the court.—R.A. No. 4200,
however, provides for exceptions when wiretapping is allowed by written
order of the court under Section 3, viz.: Section 3. Nothing contained in this
Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer,
who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to execute any of the
acts declared to be unlawful in the two preceding sections in cases
involving the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and
disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion,
conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion,
sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping
as defined by the Revised Penal Code, and violations of Commonwealth
Act No. 616, punishing espionage and other offenses against national
security: Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or granted
upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of
the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1) that
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated
hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is about to be
committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving the offenses of
rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion,
sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition, such
authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of
sedition, as the case may be, have actually been or are being committed; (2)
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained
essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the
prevention of, any of such crimes; and (3) that there are no other means
readily available for obtaining such evidence.
Same; Same; Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4200 makes illegally wiretapped
communications inadmissible in any proceeding.—To further give teeth to
the above prohibition, R.A. No. 4200 makes illegally wiretapped
communications inadmissible in any proceeding, viz.: Section 4. Any
communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance,
purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any
information therein contained obtained or se-
178
cured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall
not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative
or administrative hearing or investigation.
Same; Same; The exception under Section 1 in relation to Section 3 of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4200 does not include the use of illegally
wiretapped communication for purposes of prosecuting violations of R.A.
No. 4200 itself.—The exception under Section 1 in relation to Section 3 of
R.A. No. 4200 does not include the use of illegally wiretapped
communication for purposes of prosecuting violations of R.A. No. 4200
itself as the Court did in Ramirez. Not reading this exception into the law
would impede the prosecution of the acts it prohibits and contradict the very
purpose for adopting the law as clearly stated in its title, “An Act to Prohibit
and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of the Privacy of
Communication, and for Other Purposes.” Well-settled is the rule in
statutory construction that “where there is ambiguity, such interpretation as
will avoid inconvenience and absurdity is to be adopted.” Interpretatio talis
in ambiguis semper frienda est, ut evitatur inconveniens et absurdum. R.A.
No. 4200 should be given a sensible construction, so as to give effect to its
rationale and intent and thus avoid an unjust or absurd interpretation. The
ineluctable conclusion is that the use of illegally wiretapped communication
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
must be allowed in a prosecution under R.A. No. 4200 precisely to deter the
commission of illegal wiretapping.
REYES, J., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion:
Remedial Law; Actions; Moot and Academic; While it is true that the Court
is not absolutely precluded from resolving issues that are otherwise moot, no
compelling circumstance is present here that would warrant the exercise of
judicial review.—One of the requisites of judicial power is the presence of
an actual controversy. Courts are prohibited from deciding hypothetical,
conjectural or anticipatory questions despite their vast judicial power.
Otherwise, a decision rendered would amount to nothing but an advisory
opinion, which would not augur well with the function of courts as arbiters
of con-
179
troversies. While it is true that the Court is not absolutely precluded from
resolving issues that are otherwise moot, no compelling circumstance is
present here that would warrant the exercise of judicial review.
Same; Same; Same; When a case is impressed with public interest, a
relaxation of the application of the rules is in order.—Courts should not be
shackled by stringent rules which would result in manifest injustice. Rules
of procedure are tools crafted to facilitate, not to frustrate, the attainment of
justice. Thus, their strict and rigid application, if they result in technicalities
that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be
eschewed. Substantial rights must not be prejudiced by a rigid and technical
application of the rules in the altar of expediency. When a case is impressed
with public interest, a relaxation of the application of the rules is in order.
Time and again, this Court has suspended its own rules and excepted a
particular case from their operation whenever the higher interests of justice
so require.
Constitutional Law; Legislative Inquiry; There is nothing in the
constitutional provision that commands that every new Congress must
publish its rules of procedure.—The Constitutional provision requiring
publication of Senate rules is contained in Section 21, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution, which reads: 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. The
rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be
respected. The above provision only requires a “duly published” rule of
procedure for inquiries in aid of legislation. It is silent on republication.
There is nothing in the constitutional provision that commands that every
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
180
NACHURA, J.:
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.1
_______________
181
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
182
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
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.5
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 bills6 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.7
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. 42008 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, pos-
_______________
183
_______________
184
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
17 Id., at p. 62. The Court identified the following issues for discussion in the
October 2, 2007 Oral Argument:
1. Whether the petitioners have locus standi to bring this suit.
2. Whether the Rules of Procedure of the Senate and the Senate Committees
governing the conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation have been published, in
accordance with Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution. Corollarily:
(a) Whether these Rules must be published by every Congress.
(b) What mode/s of publication will comply with the constitutional
requirement.
3. Whether the inquiry, which is centered on the so-called “Garci tapes,” violates
Section 3, Article III of the Constitution and/or Republic Act No. 4200. (Id., at p. 66.)
18 Motion for Leave to Intervene and Petition-in-Intervention filed on October 26,
2007.
19 Resolution dated November 20, 2007.
185
-I-
Before delving into the merits of the case, the Court shall first
resolve the issue on the parties’ standing, argued at length in their
pleadings.
In Tolentino v. COMELEC,20 we explained that “ ‘[l]egal
standing’ or locus standi refers to a personal and substantial interest
in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct
injury because of the challenged governmental act x x x,” thus,
“generally, a party will be allowed to litigate only when (1) he can show that
he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the
allegedly illegal conduct of the government; (2) the injury is fairly traceable
to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a
favorable action.”21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
186
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
187
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
188
_______________
33 Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives, supra note 31, at p. 895; p. 136.
34 Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona, Jr., G.R. No. 113375, May 5, 1994, 232 SCRA
110, 139.
35 Dumlao v. Commission on Elections, 184 Phil. 369, 377; 95 SCRA 392, 400
(1980). This case explains the standards that have to be followed in the exercise of the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
power of judicial review, namely: (1) the existence of an appropriate case; (2) an
interest personal and
189
_______________
substantial by the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the plea that the
function be exercised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the necessity that the
constitutional question be passed upon in order to decide the case.
36 La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos, 465 Phil. 860, 889-890; 441
SCRA 148, 178 (2004).
37 Rufino v. Endriga, G.R. Nos. 139554 and 139565, July 21, 2006, 496 SCRA
13, 46.
38 Lanuza, Jr. v. Yuchengco, G.R. No. 157033, March 28, 2005, 454 SCRA 130,
138.
39 Rollo (G.R. No. 170338), p. 9.
190
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
- III -
As to the petition in G.R. No. 179275, the Court grants the same.
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.42 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.43
What constitutes publication is set
_______________
191
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
44 As amended on June 18, 1987 by Executive Order No. 200 entitled “Providing for the
Publication of Laws Either in the Official Gazette or in a Newspaper of General Circulation in
the Philippines as a Requirement for their Effectivity.”
45 Rollo (G.R. No. 179275), p. 179; Memorandum of Respondents-Intervenors, pp. 9-10.
46 G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008, 549 SCRA 77, 135-136.
192
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
“On the nature of the Senate as a ‘continuing body,’ this Court sees fit to
issue a clarification. Certainly, there is no debate that the Senate as an
institution is ‘continuing,’ as it is not dissolved as an entity with each
national election or change in the composition of its members. However, in
the conduct of its day-to-day business the Senate of each Congress acts
separately and independently of the
_______________
193
Senate of the Congress before it. The Rules of the Senate itself confirms this
when it states:
RULE XLIV
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
SEC. 123. Unfinished business at the end of the session shall
be taken up at the next session in the same status.
All pending matters and proceedings shall terminate upon the
expiration of one (1) Congress, but may be taken by the succeeding
Congress as if present for the first time.
Undeniably from the foregoing, all pending matters and proceedings, i.e.
unpassed bills and even legislative investigations, of the Senate of a
particular Congress are considered terminated upon the expiration of that
Congress and it is merely optional on the Senate of the succeeding Congress
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
194
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
Congress may easily adopt different rules for its legislative inquiries which
come within the rule on unfinished business.
The language of Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution requiring that the
inquiry be conducted in accordance with the duly published rules of
procedure is categorical. It is incumbent upon the Senate to publish the
rules for its legislative inquiries in each Congress or otherwise make the
published rules clearly state that the same shall be effective in subsequent
Congresses or until they are amended or repealed to sufficiently put public
on notice.
If it was the intention of the Senate for its present rules on legislative
inquiries to be effective even in the next Congress, it could have
195
easily adopted the same language it had used in its main rules regarding
effectivity.”
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
person’s liberty at risk. A person who violates the Rules of Procedure could
be arrested and detained by the Senate.”
_______________
49 TSN, Oral Arguments, March 4, 2008, (G.R. No. 179275), pp. 413-414.
196
_______________
50 Entitled “An Act Providing for the Recognition and Use of Electronic
Commercial and Non-Commercial Transactions and Documents, Penalties for
Unlawful Use Thereof and For Other Purposes,” approved on June 14, 2000.
51 MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation, G.R. No.
170633, October 15, 2007, 536 SCRA 408. (Emphasis supplied.)
52 Sections 6, 7 and 10 of R.A. No. 8792 read:
Sec. 6. Legal Recognition of Data Messages.—Infor-mation shall not be denied
legal effect, validity or enforceability solely on the grounds that it is in the data
message purporting to give rise to such legal effect, or that it is merely referred to in
that electronic data message.
Sec. 7. Legal Recognition of Electronic Documents.—Electronic documents
shall have the legal effect, validity or enforceability as any other document or legal
writing, and—
(a) Where the law requires a document to be in writing, that requirement is met
by an electronic document if the said electronic document maintains its integrity and
reliability, and can be authenticated so as to be usable for subsequent reference, in that
—
(i) The electronic document has remained complete and unaltered, apart
from the addition of any endorsement and any authorized change, or any
change which arises in the normal course of communication, storage and
display; and
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
197
not make the internet a medium for publishing laws, rules and
regulations.
_______________
198
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
199
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
DISSENTING OPINION
PUNO, C.J.:
The case at bar takes one to task in distinguishing between what
is apparent and what is real, what is central and what is peripheral,
to get to the core of the issues that will decide the controversy at bar.
The facts pertaining to both G.R. No. 170338 and G.R. No.
179275 as narrated in the ponencia are undisputed. Hence, I will go
direct to the issues.
200
_______________
201
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
Senate Committee on National Defense and Security, G.R. No. 180643, September 4,
2008, 564 SCRA 152.
202
presented for the first time. The logic and practicality of such a rule is
readily apparent considering that the Senate of the succeeding Congress
(which will typically have a different composition as that of the previous
Con-
203
gress) should not be bound by the acts and deliberations of the Senate of
which they had no part. If the Senate is a continuing body even with respect
to the conduct of its business, then pending matters will not be deemed
terminated with the expiration of one Congress but will, as a matter of
course, continue into the next Congress with the same status.
This dichotomy of the continuity of the Senate as an institution and of
the opposite nature of the conduct of its business is reflected in its Rules.
The Rules of the Senate (i.e. the Senate’s main Rules of Procedure) states:
RULE LI
AMENDMENTS TO, OR REVISIONS OF, THE RULES
SEC. 136. At the start of each session in which the Senators
elected in the preceding elections shall begin their term of office,
the President may endorse the Rules to the appropriate committee
for amendment or revision.
The Rules may also be amended by means of a motion which
should be presented at least one day before its consideration, and the
vote of the majority of the Senators present in the session shall be
required for its approval. (emphasis supplied)
RULE LII
DATE OF TAKING EFFECT
SEC. 137. These Rules shall take effect on the date of their
adoption and shall remain in force until they are amended or
repealed. (emphasis supplied)
Section 136 of the Senate Rules quoted above takes into account the new
composition of the Senate after an election and the possibility of the
amendment or revision of the Rules at the start of each session in which the
newly elected Senators shall begin their term.
204
However, it is evident that the Senate has determined that its main rules
are intended to be valid from the date of their adoption until they are
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
205
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
Senate Committee on National Defense and Security, G.R. No. 180643, September 4, 2008, pp.
42-25; p. 231.
206
take judicial notice of the fact, the recent publication does not cure the
infirmity of the inquiry sought to be prohibited by the instant petitions. In so
far 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 govern it, in clear
contravention of the Constitution.”6 (emphasis supplied)
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
6 Ponencia.
7 Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations, Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, and Senate Committee on
National Defense and Security, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008, 549 SCRA 77,
139. The dispositive portion reads, viz.:
207
faithful adherence of the case at bar to the Neri Ruling would yield
the conclusion that the “Garci tapes” investigation may be
conducted even without the published Rules of Procedure Governing
Inquiries, and that only those orders and proceedings that result in
the violation of the rights of the witnesses may be considered null
and void. The ponencia did not, however, show which orders or
proceedings resulted in this violation and, instead, made a blanket
prohibition of the conduct of the “Garci tapes” investigation for
want of published Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries.
In line with my position in my Dissents to the March 25 Neri
Decision and the September 4 Neri Resolution, it is my considered
view that the subject “Garci tapes” investigation is not
constitutionally infirm for being conducted without the publication
of the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in the 14th Congress
prior to said investigation. In addition to the points raised in my two
Dissents, I respectfully submit that the following inconsistencies and
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
208
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
209
“In the present case, the Court’s exercise of its power of judicial review
is warranted because there appears to be a clear abuse of the power of
contempt on the part of respondent Committees. Section 18 of the Rules
provides that:
‘The Committee, by a vote of majority of all its members, may punish
for contempt any witness before it who disobeys any order of the
Committee or refuses to be sworn or to testify or to answer proper questions
by the Committee or any of its members.’ (Emphasis supplied)
In the assailed Decision, we said that there is a cloud of doubt as to the
validity of the contempt order because during the deliberation of the three
(3) respondent Committees, only seven (7) Senators were present. This
number could hardly fulfill the majority require-
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008, 459 SCRA 77, 132-136.
210
_______________
211
the rights of witnesses should be considered null and void, considering that
the rationale for the publication is to protect the rights of witnesses as
expressed in Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution. Sans such violation,
orders and proceedings are considered valid and effective.”10
_______________
212
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 37/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
213
_______________
214
ing that the Senate is fully aware that Article VI, Section 21 requires
legislative investigations to be conducted in accordance with duly
published Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries.
The September 4 Neri Resolution recognizes that the Senate
Rules have continuing effect from one Congress to the next, because
it provides in Section 137 that the Senate Rules “shall take effect on
the date of their adoption and shall remain in force until they are
amended or repealed.” The Senate Rules unmistakably state that
their effectivity can be interrupted only by amendment or repeal as
provided in Section 137 and not by termination of one Congress as
provided in Section 136. The Rules of Procedure Governing
Inquiries have the same character as the Senate Rules. Both are not
“pending matters and proceedings” that terminate with the
expiration of the Congress. Pending matters and proceedings
include investigations that have not been terminated or bills that
have not completed the legislative process in the Senate of one
Congress.
The continuing effectivity of the Senate Rules from one Congress
to the next, which the Court acknowledged in its September 4
Neri Resolution, evinces the nature of the Senate as a continuing
body governed by its continuing Senate Rules. If the Senate were
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 39/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
not a continuing body, there would be no reason for the Senate Rules
to likewise have a continuing effect. In contradistinction, the
effectivity of the Rules of Proceedings of the House of
Representatives (House Rules)—which is admittedly not a
continuing body, as the terms of all congressmen end at the same
time—terminates upon the expiration of one Congress. Thus, Rule 1,
Section 1 of the 14th Congress House Rules adopted on November
20, 2007 reflects the practice of the House of Representatives of
adopting rules of proceedings on its first meet-
215
RULE I
Convening and Organizing the House
x x x x x x x x x
After the oath-taking of the newly-elected Speaker, the body shall
proceed to the adoption of the rules of the immediately preceding
Congress to govern its proceedings until the approval and adoption of the
rules of the current Congress. (emphasis supplied)
Chapter XLVI
Unfinished Business in the Senate
Sec. 108. Unfinished business at the end of one session shall not be
affected by the closing of same, but shall be taken up again at the next
session in the same status in which it was.
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
the House of Representatives, adopted August 31, 1999; 10th Cong. Rules of the House of
Representatives, adopted July 24, 1995.
216
_______________
14 Rules of the Senate approved on January 25, 1950, and revised as of 1966.
15 273 U.S. 135 (1927).
16 1935 Phil. Const., Art. VIII, §3 provides, viz.:
Section 3. The term of office of Senators shall be six years and shall
begin on the thirtieth day of December next following their election. The first
Senators elected under this Constitution shall, in the manner provided by law,
be divided equally into three groups, the Senators of the first group to serve
for a term of six years; those of the second group, for four years; and those of
the third group, for two years.
17 1987 Phil. Const., Art. VI, §4 in relation to Art. XVIII, §2 provides, viz.:
Art. VI, Sec. 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and
shall commence, unless otherwise provided by
217
Rule V
Suspension and Amendment of the Rules
x x x x x x x x x
2. The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the
next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.18
(emphasis supplied)
In sum, the Philippine Senate Rules under both the 1935 and the
1987 Constitutions and the Standing Rules of the
_______________
law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election.
218
U.S. Senate, after which the Philippine Senate was patterned, reflect
the nature of the Senate as a continuing body. That the Senate is a
continuing body proceeds from its nature as created by the Framers
of the U.S. Constitution and adopted by the 1935 and the 1987
Philippine Constitutions. The Senate Rules are not the bases for the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 42/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
continuing nature of the Senate, but they embody and reflect this
nature.
Third, the recognition that the Senate is a continuing body as
reflected in the continuing effect of the Senate Rules from one
Congress to the next is not consistent with the holding of the
ponencia that the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries must
explicitly provide for this continuing effectivity if such were the
intent of the Senate, viz.:
The Rules simply state “(t)hese Rules shall take effect seven (7) days after
publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.” The latter does
not explicitly provide for the continued effectivity of such rules until they
are amended or repealed. In view of the difference in the language of the
two sets of Senate rules, it cannot be presumed that the Rules (on
legislative inquiries) would continue into the next Congress.19 (emphasis
supplied)
_______________
219
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 43/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
20 220 Phil. 422; 136 SCRA 27 (1985); Resolution of Motion for Reconsideration,
230 Phil. 528; 146 SCRA 446 (1986).
21 Tañada v. Tuvera, 230 Phil. 528, 533-535; 146 SCRA 446, 453-454 (1986); See
also The Veterans Federation of the Philippines v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155027, February
28, 2006, 483 SCRA 526; Umali v. Estanislao, G.R. No. 104037, May 29, 1992, 209
SCRA 446.
22 Tañada v. Tuvera, 230 Phil. 528; 146 SCRA 446 (1986).
23 Executive Order No. 200, issued by President Corazon C. Aquino.
220
221
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 45/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
To avoid clutter, let us excise the fat to get to the lean meat of the
controversy before the Court.
While the 1987 Constitution affords paramount importance to the
policy of transparency, public accountability, and informed
participation of the citizenry in a democracy, the case at bar is not
about balancing between the right to privacy of communication
under Article III, Section 324 of the
_______________
222
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 46/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
223
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 47/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
224
or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a
dictaphone or dictagraph or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however
otherwise described:
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the
act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess
any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or
copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either
before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this
law; or to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to
communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to
furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any
other person: Provided, That the use of such record or any copies
thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of
offenses mentioned in Section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this
prohibition.
Section 2. Any person who willfully or knowingly does or who shall
aid, permit, or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful
in the preceding section or who violates the provisions of the following
section or of any order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes
such violation shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment
for not less than six months or more than six years and with the accessory
penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if the
offender be a public official at the time of the commission of the offense,
and, if the offender is an alien he shall be subject to deportation
proceedings.” (emphases supplied)
225
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 48/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
226
_______________
227
for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any of such crimes; and (3)
that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.”
(emphasis supplied)
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 50/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
28 People v. Huang Zhen Hua, G.R. No. 139301, September 29, 2004, 439 SCRA 350, 381.
228
part of the narration of the facts of the case. A mechanical and literal
reading of Sections 1 and 4 of R.A. No. 4200 would yield the absurd
conclusion that the Court violated these provisions for
“communicat(ing) the contents thereof (the illegally wiretapped
conversation), either verbally or in writing” and using the
inadmissible transcription in its judicial proceedings. It is clear to
the eye that this was not the intent of the lawmakers in enacting R.A.
No. 4200. “Legislative intent is determined principally from the
language of a statute. Where the language of a statute is clear and
unambi-
_______________
229
4200 itself as the Court did in Ramirez. Not reading this exception
into the law would impede the prosecution of the acts it prohibits
and contradict the very purpose for adopting the law as clearly stated
in its title, “An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other
Related Violations of the Privacy of Communication, and for Other
Purposes.” Well-settled is the rule in statutory construction that
“where there is ambiguity, such interpretation as will avoid
inconvenience
_______________
30 Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995, 248 SCRA
590.
230
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 53/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
231
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 54/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
232
_______________
233
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 55/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
36 Philippine Airlines v. Joselito Pascua, et al., G.R. No. 143258, August 15, 2003, 409
SCRA 195.
234
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 56/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
The first prayer is moot and academic, as the “Garci tapes” were
already played in the session floor of the House of Representatives
on July 5, 2005.38 The second prayer is also moot and academic, as
the subject records of proceedings and reports belong to the House
of Representatives of the Thirteenth Congress, which has already
been terminated. The House of Representatives not being a
continuous body, the current House of Representatives of the
Fourteenth Congress is different from the House of Representatives
of the Thirteenth Congress. Thus, petitioner Garcillano ought to first
seek recourse to the current House of Representatives with respect to
his second prayer.
I vote to dismiss the petitions in G.R. No. 170338 and G.R. No.
179275.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
REYES, R.T., J.:
I concur with the ponencia insofar as it dismisses the petition in
G.R. No. 170338 but dissent insofar as it grants the petition in G.R.
No. 179275.
_______________
235
_______________
236
_______________
4 “Separate findings, no closure on ‘Hello Garci’ scandal” dated March 29, 2006
by Michael Lim Ubac in http://www.inquirer.net/
specialreports/hellogarci/view.php?db=0&article=20060329-70909. The report
partly states:
THE HOUSE of Representatives inquiry has resulted in two “Hello Garci” reports,
separate findings, no closure.
At dusk yesterday, the majority and minority blocs came up with separate
committee reports on the wiretapping scandal that nearly unseated President Gloria
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 58/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
237
_______________
As expected, there was nothing new in the majority’s findings and recommendations.
The main report did not deviate from the revised draft report it routed to committee
members on March 13, which admitted the failure of the joint congressional inquiry to unravel
the mystery of the political controversy.
The report said that the hearings “only raised more issues and answered none,” thus
Congress should “continue to seek the answers x x x and in particular subpoena phone records
to establish the likelihood or unlikelihood that alleged wiretapping conversations could have
taken place.”
5 465 Phil. 860; 421 SCRA 148 (2004).
238
tions since any attempt at abstraction could only lead to dialectics and
barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities.”6
_______________
239
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 60/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
Anent the first issue, I agree with the ponencia and the dissenting
opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Reynato Puno that petitioners Santiago
Javier Ranada and Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, plus intervenor Maj.
Lindsay Rex Sagge, possess the requisite locus standi to bring the
suit.
Courts should not be shackled by stringent rules which would
result in manifest injustice. Rules of procedure are
_______________
240
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 61/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
12 Tomawis v. Tabao-Caudang, G.R. No. 166547, September 12, 2007, 533 SCRA
68.
13 Piczon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 76378-81, September 24, 1990, 190
SCRA 31, 38.
241
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 62/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
242
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 63/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
243
The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence,
unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next
following their election.
The term of a Senator starts at noon of June 30 next following their
election and shall end before noon of June 30 six years after. The
constitutional provision aims to prevent a vacuum in the office of an
outgoing Senator during elections, which is fixed under the Constitution
unless changed by law on the second Monday of May,17 until June 30 when
the Senators-elect assume their office. There is no vacuum created because
at the time an outgoing Senator’s term ends, the term of a Senator-elect
begins.
The same principle holds true for the office of the President. A president-
elect does not assume office until noon of June 30 next following a
presidential election. An outgoing President does not cease to perform the
duties and responsibilities of a President merely because the people had
chosen his/her new successor. Until her term expires, an outgoing President
has the constitutional duty to discharge the powers and functions of a
President unless restricted18 by the Constitution.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 64/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
_______________
244
during an election until the opening of a new Congress for practical reasons.
This does not mean, however, that outgoing Senators cease to perform their
duties as Senators of the Republic during such elections. When the President
proclaims martial law or suspends the writ of habeas corpus, for example,
the Congress including the outgoing Senators are required to convene if not
in session within 24 hours in accordance with its rules without need of
call.”20
The Constitutional provision requiring publication of Senate rules is
contained in Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which reads:
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
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 65/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress,
voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special
session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be
set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in
the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be
determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety
requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such
proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a
call.
245
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 66/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
246
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 67/68
9/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 575
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ea754a14ee79a71e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 68/68