View full case

GARCILLANO v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC INFORMATION

FACTS:

More than three years ago, tapes allegedly containing a wiretapped conversation between the President of the Philippines and a high-ranking official of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) were made public. These tapes, known as the "Hello Garci" tapes, supposedly contained instructions from the President to manipulate the results of the 2004 presidential elections in her favor.

In response to the controversy, the House of Representatives (House) conducted a congressional investigation jointly by several committees. Eventually, seven alleged "original" tape recordings of the conversation were submitted to the House Committees by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director and other individuals. The tapes were played in the House chambers.

The House Committees decided to suspend the hearings but still prepared committee reports based on the recordings and testimonies of resource persons.

In the Senate, after more than two years, Senator Panfilo Lacson delivered a privilege speech on the issue and sought an inquiry into the alleged wiretapping activities.

The issue of whether the Senate inquiry violates Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4200 and the Constitution was raised, leading to the filing of a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to bar the Senate from conducting its scheduled legislative inquiry.

The Senate proceeded with its public hearings on the "Hello Garci" tapes while the Supreme Court consolidated the two petitions filed, which had different objectives - one was seeking toprevent the use of the tapes in the House proceedings, and the other sought to prohibit the Senate inquiry.

Facts:

This case involves two petitions, G.R. No. 170338 and G.R. No. 179275, filed before the Supreme Court. In G.R. No. 170338, petitioner Garcillano claims standing as he alleges that he is the person referred to in the "Hello Garci" tapes, which were recordings of wiretapped conversations related to electoral fraud. He asserts that he stands to be directly injured by the actions and charges of electoral fraud made by the House committees. In G.R. No. 179275, petitioners Ranada and Agcaoili argue that they have standing as concerned citizens, taxpayers, and members of the IBP. They express their concern that the use of the "Hello Garci" tapes will further divide the country and argue for the legal and proper use of public funds in the ensuing public hearings. Intervenor Sagge claims violation of his right to due process as he was summoned to attend the Senate hearings without being informed of his rights and the intended legislation underlying the investigation. He also intervenes as a taxpayer objecting to the wasteful expenditure of public funds in the conduct of the hearings. The petitioners and intervenor assert that their interests in the execution of the laws and their constitutional rights justify their standing. The Court, in recent cases, has relaxed the direct injury test and has allowed ordinary citizens, members of Congress, and civic organizations to bring actions involving constitutional issues. Thus, the Court recognizes the standing of petitioner Garcillano in G.R. No. 170338 and petitioners Ranada and Agcaoili, as well as intervenor Sagge, in G.R. No. 179275. The Court also finds that the issues raised in both petitions are of transcendental importance and should be resolved for the guidance of all.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petition in G.R. No. 170338 should be dismissed.

  2. Whether the petition in G.R. No. 179275 should be granted.

RULING:

  1. G.R. No. 170338: The petition is DISMISSED for being moot and academic.

  2. G.R. No. 179275: The petition is GRANTED. The Senate cannot continue its legislative inquiry on the "Hello Garci" tapes without duly published rules of procedure. A writ of prohibition is issued enjoining the Senate and/or any of its committees from conducting any inquiry in aid of legislation centered on the "Hello Garci" tapes.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Mootness Doctrine - Courts will not hear cases where no actual, existing controversy exists, or where no practical relief can be granted.

  2. Publication Requirement for Legislative Inquiry Rules - Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution mandates that inquiries in aid of legislation must be conducted in accordance with duly published rules of procedure.

  3. Locus Standi (Legal Standing) - Individuals must show a personal and substantial interest in the case, such that they have sustained or will sustain direct injury from the government action in question.

  4. Due Process Requirement for Publication - Rules governing legislative inquiries must be published either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation to satisfy the due process requirement.

  5. Prohibition as a Preventive Remedy - Prohibition is intended to prevent the doing of an act about to be done, not to remedy an act already accomplished.

  6. Continuing Legislative Body Doctrine - The Senate acts separately and independently in its day-to-day business—thus, pending matters terminate with the expiration of a Congress and do not automatically continue into the next Congress.