Press Release
October 28, 2007

HIGH TRIBUNAL URGED TO DISMISS PETITION TO PREVENT THE REPLAYING OF GARCI TAPES

The seven members of the Senate minority bloc have asked the Supreme Court to throw out the petition to compel the Senate to stop its inquiry into the wiretapping scandal and to prevent the chamber from replaying the "Hello Garci" tapes.

In a 28-page final memorandum to the high tribunal on the case, the opposition senators maintained that the Senate investigation does not unreasonably intrude into the right of privacy of the two public figures in the taped conversations - President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Commission on Elections Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano since the information being sought constitutes matters of public interest.

The opposition senators - Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. and Sens. Noynoy Aquino, Rodolfo Biazon, Panfilo Lacson, Loren Legarda, Jamby Madrigal and Antonio Trillanes - presented the memorandum to the SC, through their legal counsel Luis Ma. Gil Gana, in response to the petition filed by retired Court of Appeals Justices Santiago Javier Ranada and Oswaldo Agcaoili.

"What is clear is that the taped conversations detail a conspiracy between the highest official of the land and an elections commissioner engaging in electoral fraud in the 2004 presidential elections," the senators said.

They said this assessment was based on the downloaded transcripts of the Garci tapes, the widespread broadcast of the tapes by the trimedia and the discussions on the tapes by numerous columnists and media commentators.

The senators said the "Ma'am and Garci" alluded to in the tapes are two constitutional officials who must at all times be accountable to the people and are duty bound to serve the people with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, to act with patriotism and justice, and to uphold public interest over personal interest.

"They both took an oath of office and in the case of Ma'am, to faithfully and conscientiously fulfill her duties as President, to preserve and defend the Constitution, to execute the law, to do justice to every man, and to consecrate herself to the service of the nation," the senators said. "They are servants of the people and not their rulers. And as such, they enjoy a limited right to privacy compared to ordinary individuals."

The Senate inquiry, according to the minority senators, focuses not only on the breach of public trust in the performance of their duties as constitutional officers, but more so, on the abuse of power that they yield in manipulating the 2004 elections and participation of the military in partisan politics.

They argued that the inquiry, in aid of legislation, is intended to ferret out wrongdoing and prevent its repetition by plugging loopholes in existing laws, among others.

"The Senate and the people cannot simply dismiss this issue on the pretext that it allegedly violates Ma'am and Garci's right to privacy and shut their eyes and cover their ears to the contents of the Garci tapes that have been so widely disseminated into the public consciousness," the opposition senators said.

The senators cited the legal opinion of eminent constitutional expert, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, on the issue:

"It has been argued that the Constitution is explicit about protecting the privacy of communications and correspondences and Congress should not violate that. But the Constitution is also explicit about freedom of expression, and jurisprudence is very strict when impairment of expression comes in the form of 'prior restraint.' Prohibiting the airing of the tapes would be prior restraint. Our Court has accepted and applied the principle that any form of prior restraint is presumed to be unconstitutional.

"In a situation where two constitutional rights seem to conflict - in this case, privacy right and freedom of expression - our own Court has repeatedly used the 'balancing of interest test' for determining which right should be given reference. Clearly privacy concern must give way when balanced against the interest in disseminating information of paramount public importance especially when the attempt to protect privacy rights comes in the form of prior restraint." The minority senators also contend that the petitioners, following precedent rulings of the Supreme Court, have no standing to pursue this suit as concerned citizens, taxpayers and/or members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

They cited the ruling of the high court, in the Senate v. Ermita case of 2006, which states: "It is well-settled that when suing as a citizen, the interest of the petitioner is assailing the constitutionality of laws, presidential decrees, orders and other regulations, must be direct and personal."

"In this case, petitioners are not the persons whose conversations are the subject of the Senate inquiry or investigation. The persons who may legitimately complain against the violation of their rights - if any - are alive and present in the country, namely 'Ma'am and Garci'. It is only 'Ma'am and Garci' who may cause the prosecution of any person who might have violated their rights of privacy," they said.

News Latest News Feed