No legal basis to restrain Senate on Garci probe — Pimentel

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino “Nene” Q. Pimentel,
Jr. (PDP-Laban) has urged that the current
investigation on the so-called Garci tapes cannot be
legally prohibited or stopped even as he pointed out
that the statutory prohibition against the disclosure
or wiretapped materials is not absolute.

Pimentel said the inquiry, which began September 7
does not violate the letter or the spirit of the
Anti-Wiretapping Law (Republic Act 4200) which
prohibits the wiretapping of telephone conversations,
as well as the possession and use of wiretapped
materials.

This was the response of Pimentel, on behalf of the
Senate, to the petition of former Court of Appeals
Justices Oswaldo Agcaoili and Santiago Javier Ranada
to restrain the Upper Chamber from playing the Garci
tapes and from reinvestigating the wiretapping scandal
which was heard by the Supreme Court during the
presentation of oral arguments Tuesday.

Pimentel said the Senate cannot be stopped from
playing the tapes and from pursuing the inquiry on the
basis of section 4 of RA 4200.

Section 4 provides that: “Any communications 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 shall not be admissible in evidence in
any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or
administrative hearing or investigation.”

From the looks of it, Pimentel said section 4 appears
to be an unfortunate attempt to emasculate or weaken
the legislative power of oversight that the
Constitution, itself invests upon Congress.

“Section 4 purports to prevent Congress from using in
evidence any illegally-tapped material even in
legislative hearings or investigations. And if it
does, the necessary implications is that legislators
may be questioned or held liable in other places than
in Congress itself,” the minority leader said.

That, Pimentel said, runs counter to the
constitutional mandate that “no member (of Congress)
shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other
place for any speech or debate in Congress or in any
committee thereof.”

He said RA 4200 unmistakably provides that the
prohibition against disclosure of wiretapped materials
is not absolute but subject to exception.

Pimentel pointed out that President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo had already admitted, albeit
belatedly, that it was her voice at one end of the
line following the exposé on her wiretapped
conversations during the 2004 election period with
then Commission on Elections Commissioner Virgilio
Garcillano.

Since the 2004 elections were and are a matter of
national interest, he said it follows that the
conversations or series of conversations of the two
public officials dealing with aspects of such
elections under the circumstances in which these were
tapped “cannot enjoy the privacy that the Constitution
endows upon the conversations of private persons
concerning private topics.”

This is one egregious example where the privacy of
communications must give way to the right of the
people to know what their public officials do,”
Pimentel said.

“Necessarily, in this instance, the accountability of
public personalities to the people must be given full
play over and above the former’s right to privacy.”

Pimentel also agued that petitioners Agcaoili and
Ranada do not have the legal standing to question the
Senate inquiry since they are not the persons whose
conversations are the subject of the legislative
investigation.

Under RA 4200, he said “Ma-am” and “Garci” may
legitimize the tapping, use or possession by other
persons of their communication by authorizing such
acts. But they may also withhold the legitimization
and consequently, criminalize the acts of the
violators of their rights under RA 4200 by suing the
latter or taking such moves as are necessary to
prevent the use of the illegally tapped materials.

“But Ma’am and Garci have not made any such move.
Therefore it is safe to conclude that they have waived
whatever rights they have under RA 4200.”

“Since it is their privacy rights that are claimed to
have been violated, nobody can sue for the vindication
of those rights on their behalf. Unless, perhaps if
‘Ma’am’ and ‘Garci’ are minors or are incapacitated to
do so in other ways.

Furthermore, Pimentel said the petitioners had not
questioned the constitutionality issue at the
“earliest opportunity,” meaning as early as June 6,
2005 when Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye, played the
tapes before the Malacañang Press Corps.
-o0o-

IMPORTANT NOTICE: INBOX is an archive of press releases, statements, announcements, letters to the editors, and manifestos sent to PinoyPress for publication. Please email your materials to pinoypress @ gmail.com. PinoyPress is not responsible for the content of these materials. The opinion expessed in these items does not reflect those of PinoyPress and its staff. Please refer to our terms of use/disclaimer.