7/17/2019 GARCILLANO-vs-HOUSE-OF-REP.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/garcillano-vs-house-of-repdocx 1/2

GARCILLANO vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, et.al G.R. No. 170338

e!e"#e$ %3, %008

FACTS: In 2005, tapes which allegedly contained a conversation between GA and

C!"#"C Co$$issioner Garcillano s%r&aced' The said conversation contained a

plan to rig the elections to &avor GA' The recordings then beca$e s%b(ect to

legislative hearings cond%cted separately by each )o%se' In his privilege speech,

Sen' "sc%dero $otioned a congressional investigation (ointly cond%cted by the

Co$$ittees on *%blic In&or$ation, *%blic !rder and Sa&ety, +ational e&ense and

Sec%rity, In&or$ation and Co$$%nications Technology, and S%-rage and "lectoral

.e&or$s /respondent )o%se Co$$ittees' %ring the in1%iry, several versions o& the

wiretapped conversation e$erged' #acsons $otion &or a senate in1%iry was

re&erred to the Co$$ittee on +ational e&ense and Sec%rity headed by 3ia4on'

Garci s%bse1%ently led two petitions' !ne to prevent the playing o& the tapes in

the each ho%se &or they are alleged to be inad$issible and the other to prohibit and

stop the cond%ct o& the Senate in1%iry on the wiretapped conversation'

 The respondents ad$it in their pleadings and even on oral arg%$ent that the

Senate .%les o& *roced%re Governing In1%iries in Aid o& #egislation had beenp%blished in newspapers o& general circ%lation only in 6775 and in 2008' 9ith

respect to the present Senate o& the 6th Congress, however, o& which the ter$ o& 

hal& o& its $e$bers co$$enced on ;%ne <0, 200=, no e-ort was %nderta>en &or the

p%blication o& these r%les when they rst opened their session' .espondents (%sti&y

their non?observance o& the constit%tionally $andated p%blication by arg%ing that

the r%les have never been a$ended since 6775 and, despite that, they are

p%blished in boo>let &or$ available to anyone &or &ree, and accessible to the p%blic

at the Senates internet web page, invo>ing .'A' +o' @=72'

ISS": 9hether or not to grant the petitions o& Garci'

)"#: Garcis rst petition to stri>e the tapes o- the record cannot be granted' Thetapes were already played in Congress and those tapes were already highly

p%blici4ed' The iss%e is already overta>en by these incidents hence it has beco$e

$oot and acade$ic'

 The second petition &or prohibition o& petitioners .anada and Agcaoili $%st be

granted however' The Senate cannot be allowed to contin%e with the cond%ct o& the

1%estioned legislative in1%iry witho%t d%ly p%blished r%les o& proced%re, in clear

derogation o& the constit%tional re1%ire$ent'

Section 26, Article BI o& the 67@= Constit%tion eplicitly provides that DEthe Senate

or the )o%se o& .epresentatives, or any o& its respective co$$ittees $ay cond%ct

in1%iries in aid o& legislation in accordance with its d%ly p%blished r%les o& proced%re' The re1%isite o& p%blication o& the r%les is intended to satis&y the basic

re1%ire$ents o& d%e process' *%blication is indeed i$perative, &or it will be the

height o& in(%stice to p%nish or otherwise b%rden a citi4en &or the transgression o& a

law or r%le o& which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constr%ctive one'

9hat constit%tes p%blication is set &orth in Article 2 o& the Civil Code, which provides

that DElaws shall ta>e e-ect a&ter 65 days &ollowing the co$pletion o& their

7/17/2019 GARCILLANO-vs-HOUSE-OF-REP.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/garcillano-vs-house-of-repdocx 2/2

p%blication either in the !Hcial Ga4ette, or in a newspaper o& general circ%lation in

the *hilippines'

 The phrase d%ly p%blished r%les o& proced%re re1%ires the Senate o& every

Congress to p%blish its r%les o& proced%re governing in1%iries in aid o& legislation

beca%se every Senate is distinct &ro$ the one be&ore it or a&ter it' Since Senatorial

elections are held every three /< years &or one?hal& o& the Senates $e$bership,

the co$position o& the Senate also changes by the end o& each ter$' "ach Senate

$ay th%s enact a di-erent set o& r%les as it $ay dee$ t' +ot having p%blished its

.%les o& *roced%re, the s%b(ect hearings in aid o& legislation to be cond%cted by the

Senate, are there&ore, proced%rally inr$'

 The invocation by the respondents o& the provisions o& .'A' +o' @=72,otherwise

>nown as the "lectronic Co$$erce Act o& 2000, to s%pport their clai$ o& valid

p%blication thro%gh the internet is all the $ore incorrect' .'A' @=72 considers an

electronic data $essage or an electronic doc%$ent as the &%nctional e1%ivalent o& a

written doc%$ent only &or evidentiary p%rposes' In other words, the law $erely

recogni4es the ad$issibility in evidence /&or their being the original o& electronic

data $essages andJor electronic doc%$ents' It does not $a>e the internet a$edi%$ &or p%blishing laws, r%les and reg%lations'

Given this disc%ssion, the respondent Senate Co$$ittees, there&ore, !o&l' (ot, in

violation o& the Constit%tion, &se )ts &(*&#l)s+e' $&les )( t+e le)slat)ve

)(-&)$ s&#/e!t o t+ese !o(sol)'ate' !ases' The cond%ct o& in1%iries in aid o& 

legislation by the Senate has to be de&erred %ntil it shall have ca%sed the

p%blication o& the r%les, beca%se it can do so only in accordance with its d%ly

p%blished r%les o& proced%re'