Constitutional Law
Garcillano v. Senate of the Philippines
G.R. No. 170338: December 23, 2008
Ranada v. Senate of the Philippines
G.R. No. 179275: December 23, 2008
FACTS:
Petitioner Virgilio Garcillano filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Prohibition
and Injunction, with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction docketed as G.R. No. 170338. He prayed that the respondent House Committees
be restrained from using these tape recordings of the “illegally obtained” wiretapped
conversations in their committee reports and for any other purpose. He further implored that
the said recordings and any reference thereto be ordered stricken off the records of the
inquiry, and the respondent House Committees directed to desist from further using the
recordings in any of the House proceedings.
Without reaching its denouement, the House discussion and debates on the “Garci
tapes” abruptly stopped. More than two years after the “Hello Garci” tapes scandal had since
quieted down, Senator Panfilo Lacson raised the issue during his privilege speech in August
2007. The Senate then began debating on whether it may investigate on the matter without
contravening the Constitution and R.A. No. 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapping
Law.
On September 6, 2007, petitioners Santiago Ranada and Oswaldo Agcaoili, retired
Justices of the Court of Appeals, filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Prohibition with
Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction, seeking to restrain the Senate from conducting a legislative inquiry on the grounds
of the Senate allegedly not having published yet its Rules of Procedure.
The Senate argues that it had published its Rules of Procedure in 1995 and 2006 in
newspapers of general circulation, and that the Rules had never been amended since 1995.
According to them, the Rules are published in booklet form available to anyone for free, and
that the Rules are accessible at the Senate’s website.
ISSUE:
Is the Senate a continuing body?
RULING:
The Senate is not a continuing body because if it were, then pending matters and
unfinished business by an adjourning Congress would still be considered and continued by
the succeeding Congress. Section 123 of the Rules of the Senate states that “All pending
matters and proceedings shall terminate upon the expiration of one (1) Congress, but may be
taken by the succeeding Congress as if present for the first time.” The logic behind this rule is
Constitutional Law
because every Congress has a different composition of members and thus, a succeeding
Congress should not be bound by the acts and deliberations of a previous Congress.
Moreover, Section 136 of the Rules of the Senate contemplates that at the start of each
session, the President may endorse the Rules to the appropriate committee for amendment or
revision. And while Section 137 states that the adoption of said Rules shall remain in force
until they are amended or repealed, the same Rules simply state that such Rules shall take
effect seven days after publication. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the Rules of a
Senatorial Congress would continue into the next Congress.