Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Garcillano vs. House of Representatives
Garcillano vs. House of Representatives
DECISION
NACHURA , J : p
After more than two years of quiescence, Senator Pan lo 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 led two bills 6 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. 4200 8 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,
possession, replay or communication of the contents of the "Hello Garci" tapes.
However, she recommended a legislative investigation into the role of the Intelligence
Service of the AFP (ISAFP), the Philippine National Police or other government entities
in the alleged illegal wiretapping of public officials. 9
On September 6, 2007, petitioners Santiago Ranada and Oswaldo Agcaoili,
retired justices of the Court of Appeals, led before this Court a Petition for Prohibition
with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction, 1 0 docketed as G.R. No. 179275, seeking to bar the Senate from
conducting its scheduled legislative inquiry. They argued in the main that the intended
legislative inquiry violates R.A. No. 4200 and Section 3, Article III of the Constitution. 1 1
As the Court did not issue an injunctive writ, the Senate proceeded with its public
hearings on the "Hello Garci" tapes on September 7, 1 2 17 1 3 and October 1, 1 4 2007.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Intervening as respondents, 1 5 Senators Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Benigno
Noynoy C. Aquino, Rodolfo G. Biazon, Pan lo M. Lacson, Loren B. Legarda, M.A. Jamby
A.S. Madrigal and Antonio F. Trillanes led their Comment 1 6 on the petition on
September 25, 2007. aAIcEH
Given that petitioners Ranada and Agcaoili allege an interest in the execution of
the laws and that intervenor Sagge asserts his constitutional right to due process, 3 0
they satisfy the requisite personal stake in the outcome of the controversy by merely
being citizens of the Republic.
Following the Court's ruling in Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives, 3 1
we nd su cient petitioners Ranada's and Agcaoili's and intervenor Sagge's allegation
that the continuous conduct by the Senate of the questioned legislative inquiry will
necessarily involve the expenditure of public funds. 3 2 It should be noted that in
Francisco, rights personal to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. had been injured by
the alleged unconstitutional acts of the House of Representatives, yet the Court granted
standing to the petitioners therein for, as in this case, they invariably invoked the
vindication of their own rights — as taxpayers, members of Congress, citizens,
individually or in a class suit, and members of the bar and of the legal profession —
which were also supposedly violated by the therein assailed unconstitutional acts. 3 3
Likewise, a reading of the petition in G.R. No. 179275 shows that the petitioners
and intervenor Sagge advance constitutional issues which deserve the attention of this
Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents. The issues are of
transcendental and paramount importance not only to the public but also to the Bench
and the Bar, and should be resolved for the guidance of all. 3 4
Thus, in the exercise of its sound discretion and given the liberal attitude it has
shown in prior cases climaxing in the more recent case of Chavez, the Court recognizes
the legal standing of petitioners Ranada and Agcaoili and intervenor Sagge. cHATSI
II
The Court, however, dismisses G.R. No. 170338 for being moot and academic.
Repeatedly stressed in our prior decisions is the principle that the exercise by this
Court of judicial power is limited to the determination and resolution of actual cases
and controversies. 3 5 By actual cases, we mean existing con icts appropriate or ripe
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
for judicial determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, for otherwise the decision of
the Court will amount to an advisory opinion. The power of judicial inquiry does not
extend to hypothetical questions because any attempt at abstraction could only lead to
dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities.
3 6 Neither will the Court determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief
can be granted. A case becomes moot when its purpose has become stale. 3 7 It is
unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question
as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things,
cannot be enforced. 3 8
In G.R. No. 170338, petitioner Garcillano implores from the Court, as
aforementioned, the issuance of an injunctive writ to prohibit the respondent House
Committees from playing the tape recordings and from including the same in their
committee report. He likewise prays that the said tapes be stricken off the records of
the House proceedings. But the Court notes that the recordings were already played in
the House and heard by its members. 3 9 There is also the widely publicized fact that the
committee reports on the "Hello Garci" inquiry were completed and submitted to the
House in plenary by the respondent committees. 4 0 Having been overtaken by these
events, the Garcillano petition has to be dismissed for being moot and academic. After
all, prohibition is a preventive remedy to restrain the doing of an act about to be done,
and not intended to provide a remedy for an act already accomplished. 4 1
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. 4 2 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. 4 3 What
constitutes publication is set forth in Article 2 of the Civil Code, which provides that "
[l]aws shall take effect after 15 days following the completion of their publication either
in the Official Gazette, or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines." 4 4 EScaIT
The respondents in G.R. No. 179275 admit in their pleadings and even on oral
argument that the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation
had been published in newspapers of general circulation only in 1995 and in 2006. 4 5
With respect to the present Senate of the 14th Congress, however, of which the term of
half of its members commenced on June 30, 2007, no effort was undertaken for the
publication of these rules when they first opened their session.
Recently, the Court had occasion to rule on this very same question. In Neri v.
Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, 4 6 we said:
Fourth , we nd merit in the argument of the OSG that respondent
Committees likewise violated Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution,
requiring that the inquiry be in accordance with the "duly published rules of
procedure ". We quote the OSG's explanation:
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 to take up such
un nished matters, not in the same status , but as if presented for the rst
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 Congress) 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
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. HSCAIT
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.
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.
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 amended
or repealed. Such language is conspicuously absent from the Rules. 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. The Senate of the next 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 easily adopted
the same language it had used in its main rules regarding effectivity.
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. 4 9 HIESTA
Very recently, 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 in rmity of the inquiry sought to be prohibited by the instant
petitions. Insofar 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 governed it, in clear contravention of the Constitution.
With the foregoing disquisition, the Court nds it unnecessary to discuss the
other issues raised in the consolidated petitions.
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 170338 is DISMISSED, and the petition in
G.R. No. 179275 is GRANTED. Let a writ of prohibition be issued enjoining the Senate of
the Republic of the Philippines and/or any of its committees from conducting any
inquiry in aid of legislation centered on the "Hello Garci" tapes.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Carpio, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Brion, JJ., concur.
Puno, C.J., pls. see dissent.
Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales and Azcuna, JJ., join the
dissent of Chief Justice Puno.
Corona, J., is on leave.
Reyes, J., see concurring and dissenting opinion.
Separate Opinions
PUNO , C.J., dissenting :
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. SCcHIE
The facts pertaining to both G.R. No. 170338 and G.R. No 17925 as narrated in
the ponencia are undisputed. Hence, I will go direct to the issues.
First, the issues in G.R. No. 179275. These were delineated in the Oral Argument
held on October 2, 2007 as follows:
1. Whether the petitioners have locus standi to bring the 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. 1
As I agree with the disquisition of the ponencia on the rst issue, I shall limit my
discussion to the second and third issues. CDHSac
Subsequently, the Court clari ed the above ruling in the September 4 Neri
Resolution . I quote the ruling at length, viz.:
Having touched the subject of the Rules, we now proceed to respondent
Committees' fourth argument. Respondent Committees argue that the Senate
does not have to publish its Rules because the same was published in 1995 and
in 2006. Further, they claim that the Senate is a continuing body; thus, it is not
required to republish the Rules, unless the same is repealed or amended. SaTAED
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.
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 amended
or repealed. Such language is conspicuously absent from the Rules. The Rules
simply state "(t)hese Rules shall take effect seven (7) days after publication in
two (2) newspapers of general circulation." (Section 24, Rules of Procedure
Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation) 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. The Senate of the next 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 easily adopted
the same language it had used in its main rules regarding effectivity.
Lest the Court be misconstrued, it should likewise be stressed
that not all orders issued or proceedings conducted pursuant to the
subject Rules are null and void. Only those that result in violation of
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Constitution. Sans such violation, orders and proceedings are
considered valid and effective. 5 (emphasis supplied)
The ponencia quotes the foregoing ruling in the September 4 Neri Resolution
in holding, viz.:
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. 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. What constitutes publication is set forth in Article 2 of the Civil
Code, which provides that "[l]aws shall take effect after 15 days following the
completion of their publication either in the O cial Gazette, or in a newspaper
of general circulation in the Philippines."EDISTc
The respondents in G.R. No. 179275 admit in their pleadings and even on
oral argument that the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of
Legislation had been published in newspapers of general circulation only in
1995 and in 2006. With respect to the present Senate of the 14th Congress,
however, of which the term of half of its members commenced on June 30,
2007, no effort was undertaken for the publication of these rules when they rst
opened their session.
While the ponencia cites the Neri Ruling to support its conclusion that the
subject investigation cannot be conducted without published rules, I submit that it fails
to adhere to the Neri Ruling , as the latter emphasizes that "not all orders issued or
proceedings conducted pursuant to the subject Rules are null and void. Only those
that result in violation of 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".
It will be recalled that in the March 25 Neri Decision, the Court struck down
not the entire proceedings of the Senate investigation on the NBN-ZTE deal
for want of published Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries , but only the
Order dated January 30, 2008, citing petitioner Romulo L. Neri in contempt of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Senate Committees and directing his arrest and detention (January 30 Contempt
Order) as stated in the dispositive portion of the Decision. 7 A 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 in rm 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 erroneous assumptions in the March 25 Neri
Decision and September 4 Neri Resolution merit a review of the Neri Ruling and a
consequent conclusion that the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries, sans
amendment since its publication in two newspapers of general circulation on August
24, 1995, need not be published by the Senate of every Congress. HAICcD
In the September 4 Neri Resolution , the Court reiterated its recognition of the
validity and effectivity of Section 18 of the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries, viz.:
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 ful ll the majority requirement needed by respondent Committee
on Accountability of Public O cers and Investigations which has a
membership of seventeen (17) Senators and respondent Committee on National
Defense and Security which has a membership of eighteen (18) Senators. With
respect to respondent Committee on Trade and Commerce which has a
membership of nine (9) Senators, only three (3) members were present. These
facts prompted us to quote in the Decision the exchanges between Senators
Alan Peter Cayetano and Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. whereby the former raised the
issue of lack of the required majority to deliberate and vote on the contempt
order. 9 (emphasis supplied) (footnote omitted) HCSEcI
But in the same breath, it assailed the validity of the Rules of Procedure Governing
Inquiries and held that orders issued and proceedings conducted pursuant to said
rules, which result in the violation of rights of witnesses were null and void, viz.:
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 the 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 easily adopted
the same language it had used in its main rules regarding effectivity.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Lest the Court be misconstrued, it should likewise be stressed that not all
orders issued or proceedings conducted pursuant to the subject Rules are null
and void. Only those that result in violation of 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. 1 0 AHSaTI
In sum, in both the March 25 Neri Decision and the September 4 Neri
Resolution , the Court did not invalidate the entire Senate investigation proceedings
conducted in accordance with the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries, which were
not 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.
Let us proceed to the second set of inconsistencies.
2. The continuing nature of the Senate as an institution and the discontinuing
nature of its business vis-a-vis the continuing nature of the Rules of the
Senate
In attempting to harmonize the above inconsistency in the March 25 Neri
Decision , the Court, in its September 4 Neri Resolution , saw t to "issue a
clari cation . . . (o)n the nature of the Senate as a 'continuing body'" and dichotomized
this nature into the "continuity of the Senate as an institution" and the "opposite nature
of the conduct of its business". This approach, however, spawned its own
inconsistencies. DHcESI
In explaining this dichotomy and holding that the Rules of Procedure Governing
Inquiries could not be given continuing effect from one Congress to the next unless
expressly so provided in said rules, the Court interpreted Section 136 on the
"un nished business" in conjunction with Section 137 on the "date of taking effect" of
the Rules of the Senate, viz.:
This dichotomy of the continuity of the Senate as an institution and of
the opposite nature of the conduct of its business is re ected in its Rules. The
Rules of the Senate (i.e. the Senate's main rules of procedure) states:
RULE XLIV
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
SEC. 136. Un nished business at the end of the session shall be
taken up at the next session in the same status.
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) ACIDSc
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
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 re ects
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, viz.:
RULE I
Convening and Organizing the House
xxx xxx xxx
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)
On November 20, 2007, the House of Representatives of the 14th Congress, pending
the adoption of its own House Rules, adopted the House Rules of the 13th Congress as
its provisional rules. 1 2 The House of Representatives of each Congress adopts its own
rules. 1 3 HTcDEa
Second, the above-quoted Sections 136 and 137 of the Senate Rules, adopted
under the regime of the 1987 Constitution, do not depart from the provisions of the
Senate Rules adopted under the 1935 Constitution, viz.:
Chapter XLVI
Contrary to the notion that the Senate is no longer a continuing body under the
1987 Constitution — as less than a majority continue into the Senate of the succeeding
Congress 1 7 — the termination of the un nished business of the Senate at the
expiration of a Congress and the effectivity of the Senate Rules until amended or
repealed as provided in Sections 136 and 137 of the Senate Rules under the 1987
Constitution, do not lend support to a departure from the Arnault ruling that the Senate
is a continuing body. Under both the 1935 and the 1987 Constitutions, the Senate Rules
show that a continuing Senate's un nished business terminates at the expiration of one
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Congress, and its rules remain in effect from one Congress to the next.
As expounded in my Dissent to the September 4 Neri Resolution , the
Philippine Senate is patterned after the U.S. Senate, which is a continuing body as ruled
by the U.S. Supreme Court in McGrain . The continuing nature of the U.S. Senate is also
reflected in the Standing Rules of the Senate under Rule V (2), viz.:
Rule V
SUSPENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THE RULES
In sum, the Philippine Senate Rules under both the 1935 and the 1987
Constitutions and the Standing Rules of the 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 continuing nature of the Senate, but they
embody and reflect this nature.
Third, the recognition that the Senate is a continuing body as re ected 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. 1 9 (emphasis supplied) DHcTaE
The exception to the general rule that one-time publication su ces for a law or
rule to have continuing effect is when there are circumstances or factors that interrupt
this continuity. An example is the discontinuation of the existence of the House of
Representatives as a legislative body, which terminates the effectivity of its published
Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries and requires the publication of these rules in the
succeeding Congress for them to take effect. As discussed above and in my Dissents
to the March 25 Neri Decision and September 4 Neri Resolution , the Senate,
unlike the House of Representatives, is a continuing body. Thus, contrary to the holding
of the ponencia, the Senate's Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries, sans amendment,
need not be published by the Senate of every Congress and need not also state that
they shall "remain in force until they are amended or repealed" for them to be effective
from one Congress to the next. Quite the opposite of the ponencia's ruling, in the
absence of language stating that the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries shall not
continue in effect from one Congress to the next, these rules shall have continuing
effect.
In sum, the above discussion shows that the March 25 Neri Decision and
September 4 Neri Resolution themselves provide bases for concluding that the
Senate is a continuing body and that one-time publication of the Rules of Procedure
Governing Inquiries, sans amendment, su ces to satisfy the publication requirement
under Article VI, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution. I respectfully submit that the
Court ought to so conclude in order to uphold internal consistency in its ruling with
respect to the constitutional requirement of publication of the Senate's Rules of
Procedure Governing Inquiries. In line with my position in my Dissents to the Neri
Ruling , I submit that the publication of the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in
the 14th Congress prior to the conduct of the subject "Garci tapes" investigation is not
a requirement for conducting such investigation. AIDTHC
The Senate deliberations on R.A. No. 4200 evince the meaning of private, as
opposed to public, communication , viz.:
Senator DIOKNO.
Do I Understand, Mr. Senator, that under Section 1 of the bill as now
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
worded, if a party secretly records a public speech, he would be penalized
under Section 1? Because the speech is public, but the recording is done
secretly.
Senator TAÑADA.
Senator DIOKNO.
The wording of the law is "communication or spoken word."
Senator TAÑADA.
Yes.
Senator DIOKNO.
The term "spoken word" would automatically include speeches, including,
Mr. Senator, what we are doing here this morning. HcACTE
Senator TAÑADA.
As I have said, Your Honor, the purpose of this bill is to prevent the tape
recording or interception of a communication between one person and an
another — not between a speaker and a public. Because precisely, the
speaker speaks so that the public may know what he has in mind, what he
wants to communicate to the people, and there should be no objection to
tape recording that speech. . . . 2 7 (emphases supplied)
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 o cer, 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 de ned 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 a rmation of the applicant and the witnesses he
may produce and a showing: (1) that 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
available for obtaining such evidence. (emphasis supplied) CIaHDc
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 secured 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 . (emphasis supplied)
Applying these provisions to the case at bar, the wiretapping of the
communication recorded in the "Garci tapes" may be held legal only if it was recorded
with consent of the parties to the conversation or upon written court order. As the
wiretapping was done in the course of duty by the witness, Technical Sergeant Vidal
Doble, he may be presumed to have been acting regularly in the performance of his
o cial duties. 2 8 Doble testi ed that he presumed that the order of his superior to him
to conduct a wiretap was legal, viz.:
Sen. Cayetano (P). . . Ngayon itong — noong sinabi sa iyo ito, anong
pakiramdam mo? Nagulat ka ba o parang normal lang sa iyo na, "Okay, bagong
assignment", may naisip ka bang baka violation ito ng isang batas? May naisip
ka bang ganon?
Mr. Ooble. Ang nasa isip po kasi naming noon since na galing sa military
hierarchy ang order, we assume that is a legal order, Your Honor. 2 9
The legislative investigation should precisely be allowed to proceed to establish the
circumstances surrounding the wiretapping and determine whether or not the wiretap
was legally done with the consent of the parties or lawful court order. AHDcCT
For similar reasons, another exception that ought to be read into Sections 1 and
4 of R.A. No 4200 is the use and admissibility of illegally wiretapped communication in
legislative investigations whose particular purpose is precisely to craft or
improve laws that will address the evil of illegal wiretapping. Without this exception, the
absurd result would be that legislators cannot at all investigate illegal wiretaps as they
happen on the ground and plug loopholes in the law, because Section 4 of R.A. No.
4200 provides that even the fact of existence of an illegally wiretapped communication
is inadmissible in evidence. To be sure, this could not have been the intent of the law.
Lest the herein recognized exceptions be misconstrued and open the oodgates
to violations of R.A. No. 4200, it must be emphasized that as a general rule, illegally
wiretapped material is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding, including
legislative investigations, in accordance with R.A. No. 4200. 3 3 As a very narrow
exception, however, the wiretapped material may be used and is admitted in a judicial
proceeding for prosecution of violations of R.A. No. 4200 and, akin to this, in a
legislative investigation in aid of legislation whose purpose is precisely to address the
problem of illegal wiretap. IASEca
With respect to the question of whether the use of the "Garci tapes" violates
Article III, Section 3 of the Bill of Rights, the above disquisition on R.A. No. 4200
su ciently addresses this issue. Under this constitutional provision, the privacy of
communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except (1) upon lawful order of
the court, or (2) when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
There is ostensibly no lawful order of the court under the rst exception, and any
argument anchored on the second exception will lead to R.A. No. 4200, being the only
Philippine law on wiretapping.
Anent G.R. No. 170338, it is my considered view that the petition is moot and
academic. 3 6 The petition prays that the Court issue a Resolution:
a) Ordering the immediate issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction restraining and preventing the House of
Representatives Committees on Public Information, Public Order and Safety,
National Defense and Security, Information Communications Technology, and
Suffrage and Electoral Reforms from making use of the sound recording of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
illegally obtained wiretapped conversations in their Report for the inquiries
conducted relative thereto, or from otherwise making use of said recordings for
any other purpose. TAcSaC
There is no question that the issues raised by petitioners Ranada and Agcaoili
and intervenor Sagge are of paramount importance. Thus, any procedural barrier to
their suit should be put aside.
Now to the second issue — the meat of the second petition.
Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution states:
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 ponencia holds that the Senate investigation on the "Hello Garci" tapes is
in rm because the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation
had not been duly published at the time of the legislative inquiry in question.
I hold otherwise. On this score, I reiterate my separate opinion on the motion for
reconsideration in Senate v. Ermita, 1 4 thus:
True it is that, as the Constitution mandates, the Senate may only
conduct an investigation in aid of legislation pursuant to its duly published
rules of procedure. Without publication, the Senate Rules of Procedure
Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation is ineffective. Thus, unless and until
said publication is done, the Senate cannot enforce its own rules of procedure,
including its power to cite a witness in contempt under Section 18.
But the Court can take judicial notice that the Senate Rules of Procedure
Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation was published on August 20 and 21,
1992 in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and Philippine Star during the 9th Congress.
The Senate again published its said rules on December 1, 2006 in the
Philippine Star and Philippine Daily Inquirer during the 13th Congress. That the
Senate published its rules of procedure twice more than complied with the
Constitutional requirement. aCHDST
I submit that the Senate remains a continuing body under the 1987
Constitution. That the Senate is a continuing body is premised on the staggered
terms of its members, the idea being to ensure stability of governmental
policies. This is evident from the deliberations of the framers of the
Constitution, thus:
"MR. RODRIGO. . . .
I would like to state that in the United States Federal Congress, the term of
the members of the Lower House is only two years. We have been used to
a term of four years here but I think three years is long enough. But they
will be allowed to run for reelection any number of times. In this way, we
remedy the too frequent elections every two years. We will have
elections every three years under the scheme and we will have a
continuing Senate. Every election, 12 of 24 Senators will be
elected, so that 12 Senators will remain in the Senate. In other
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
words, we will have a continuing Senate . 1 5
xxx xxx xxx
MR. DAVIDE.
This is just a paragraph of that section that will follow what has earlier
been approved. It reads: "OF THE SENATORS ELECTED IN THE ELECTION
IN 1992, THE FIRST TWELVE OBTAINING THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF
VOTES SHALL SERVE FOR SIX YEARS AND THE REMAINING TWELVE FOR
THREE YEARS."
This is to start the staggering of the Senate to conform to the idea of a
continuing Senate .
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo).
What does the Committee say?
MR. SUAREZ.
The argument that the Senate is not a continuing body because it lacks
quorum to do business after every midterm or presidential elections is awed.
It does not take into account that the term of o ce of a Senator is xed by the
Constitution. There is no vacancy in the o ce of outgoing Senators during
midterm or presidential elections. Article VI, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution
provides:
The term of o ce 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 o ce of an outgoing Senator during
elections, which is xed under the Constitution unless changed by law on the
second Monday of May, 1 7 until June 30 when the Senators-elect assume their
o ce. 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 o ce of the President. A president-
elect does not assume o ce 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
restricted 1 8 by the Constitution.
In ne, the Senate is a continuing body as it continues to have a full or at
least majority membership 1 9 even during elections until the assumption of
o ce of the Senators-elect. The Senate as an institution does not cease to have
a quorum to do business even during elections. It is to be noted that the Senate
is not in session 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. 2 0 aSTAcH
In addition, let me point out the Philippine Constitution, past and present, were
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
largely in uenced by the United States Constitution. In McGrain v. Daugherty, 2 2 the
United States Supreme Court explicitly ruled that the American Senate is a continuing
body. In Arnault v. Nazareno, 2 3 the Philippine Supreme Court, relying on McGrain, held
that the Philippine Senate is a continuing body. There is no plausible reason why the rule
should be different today.
In view of the foregoing, I nd it unnecessary to delve on the third issue which the
ponencia does not also address.
WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS both petitions in G.R. No. 170338 and G.R. No.
179275.
Footnotes
1. Rollo (G.R. No. 179275), p. 168.
2. Rollo (G.R. No. 170338), pp. 7-9.
3. Id. at 9.
4. Id. at 1-38.
5. Id. at 36-38.
8. An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of the Privacy of
Communications and for Other Purposes.
9. Rollo (G.R. No. 179275), pp. 169-170.
17. Id. at 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:
ECDaAc
22. Province of Batangas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 152774, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 736, 755. SAcaDE
23. G.R. Nos. 171396, 171409, 171485, 171483, 171400, 171489 and 171424, May 3, 2006, 489
SCRA 160.
24. David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, id. at 218.
25. G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008, 545 SCRA 441.
26. Id.
27. Reply in G.R. No. 170338, pp. 36-37.
28. Rollo (G.R. No. 179275), p. 4. DTaAHS
29. Petition-in-Intervention, p. 3.
30. David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, supra note 23, at 223.
31. 460 Phil. 830 (2003).
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.
40. See news article "Separate findings, no closure" by Michael Lim Umbac published in The
Philippine Daily Inquirer on March 29, 2006; News item "5 House committees in 'Garci'
probe file report on Monday" published in The Manila Bulletin on March 25, 2006. TASCDI
41. Simon, Jr. v. Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No. 100150, January 5, 1994, 229 SCRA
117, 135-136; Agustin v. De la Fuente, 84 Phil. 515, 517 (1949).
42. Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, A Commentary, 1996 ed., p. 679.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
43. Tañada v. Tuvera, 220 Phil. 422, 432-433 (1985).
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.
47. Id. at 297-298.
(ii) The electronic document is reliable in the light of the purpose for which it was
generated and in the light of all the relevant circumstances.
(b) Paragraph (a) applies whether the requirement therein is in the form of an obligation
or whether the law simply provides consequences for the document not being presented
or retained in its original form.
(c) Where the law requires that a document be presented or retained in its original form,
that requirement is met by an electronic document if —
(i) There exists a reliable assurance as to the integrity of the document from the time
when it was first generated in its final form; and
(ii) That document is capable of being displayed to the person to whom it is to be
presented: Provided, That no provision of this Act shall apply to vary any and all
requirements of existing laws on formalities required in the execution of documents for
their validity.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
For evidentiary purposes, an electronic document shall be the functional equivalent of a
written document under existing laws.
This Act does not modify any statutory rule relating to the admissibility of electronic
data messages or electronic documents, except the rules relating to authentication and
best evidence.
Sec. 10. Original Documents . — (1) Where the law requires information to be presented
or retained in its original form, that requirement is met by an electronic data message or
electronic document if:
(a) The integrity of the information from the time when it was first generated in its final
form, as an electronic data message or electronic document is shown by evidence
aliunde or otherwise; and
(b) Where it is required that information be presented, that the information is capable of
being displayed to the person to whom it is to be presented.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies whether the requirement therein is in the form of an obligation
or whether the law simply provides consequences for the information not being
presented or retained in its original form.
Art. VI, Sec. 4. 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.
Art, XVIII, Sec. 2. . . .
Of the Senators elected in the election in 1992, the first twelve obtaining the highest
number of votes shall serve for six years and the remaining twelve for three years.
18. STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE, revised to September 14, 2007.
19. 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, September 4, 2008, p. 44.
20. 220 Phil. 422 (1985); Resolution of Motion for Reconsideration, 230 Phil. 528 (1986).
21. Tañada v. Tuvera, 230 Phil. 528, 533-535 (1986); See also The Veterans Federation of the
Philippines v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155027, February 28, 2006, 483 SCRA 526; Umali v.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Estanislao, G.R. No. 104037, May 29, 1992, 209 SCRA 446. IDTcHa
Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as
basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as
may be provided by law.
26. G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995, 248 SCRA 590. SHAcID
29. Transcript of Senate hearing held by the Joint Committees on National Defense and
Security and the Committees on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations
(Blue Ribbon) and on Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws,
September 7, 2007, p. 95.
30. Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995, 248 SCRA 590.
31. Lanot, et al. v, Comelec, G.R. No. 164858. November 16, 2006, 507 SCRA 114.
32. An Act Amending the Provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1866, As Amended, Enlitled
"Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in,
Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives or Instruments Used in
the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives, and Imposing Stiffer Penalties
for Certain Violations Thereof, and for Relevant Purposes."
33. Salcedo-Ortanez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110662, August 4, 1994, 235 SCRA 111 and
People of the Philippines v. Olivarez, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 77865 December 4, 1998, 299
SCRA 635.
34. Transcripts of Senate hearings held by the Joint Committees on National Defense and
Security and the Committees on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations
(Blue Ribbon) and on Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws,
September 7 and 17, 2007.
35. Rollo, pp. 216, 218; Comment of respondent Senate of the Philippines, p. 2.
36. Philippine Airlines v. Joselito Pascua, et al., G.R. No. 143258, August 15, 2003, 409 SCRA
195. STcaDI
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 Macapagal-
Arroyo last year. ATICcS
It was the majority bloc represented by the chairs of the five House committees that first
handed its report to Speaker Jose de Venecia.
De Venecia congratulated the chairs led by North Cotabato Representative Emmylou
Taliño-Santos for "their wisdom and dedication to duty."
The minority report penned by Cavite Representative Gilbert Remulla highlighted the
futility of the search for truth behind an opposition allegation that the recordings showed
that Ms Arroyo phoned Election Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano to boost her chances
of winning the 2004 presidential race.
"It's likewise undeniable that the Arroyo government, in general, has shown utter
disregard, if not disrespect, towards the inquiry. Though members of the administration
appeared during the public hearings, nothing substantial was presented to help ferret out
the truth", said the minority report.
Lost opportunity
The report said that the 14 public hearings could have "finally be the moment for
Congress to address the lingering problem of election cheating, but with the way the
witnesses conducted themselves the opportunity was lost."
The minority report would be "appended" to the main report, said Santos.
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 . . . and in particular subpoena phone
records to establish the likelihood or unlikelihood that alleged wiretapping conversations
could have taken place."
8. Heirs of Eugenia v. Roxas, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. Nos. 67195, 78618 &
78619-20, May 29, 1989, 173 SCRA 581; Agustin v. De la Fuente, 84 Phil. 515 (1949);
Calbanero v. Torrens, 61 Phil. 522 (1935).
9. Ferris, The Law of Extraordinary Remedies, p. 418.
10. Montes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143797, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 432.
11. Rollo, G.R. No. 179275, p. 94. AcSHCD
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.
14. G.R. No. 180643, September 4, 2008.
15. Constitutional Commission Record (1986), p. 208.
Section 14. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless
revoked by the elected President, within ninety days from his assumption or
reassumption of office.
Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the
end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except
temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will
prejudice public service or endanger public safety.
19. The Office of a Senator may be vacant for causes such as death or permanent disability.
20. CONSTITUTION (1987), Art. VII, Sec. 18 provides:
The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines
and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when
the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under
martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the 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.
cEAIHa