SC quizzes 2 CA justices for TRO on ‘Garci’ tapes

Justices of the Supreme Court questioned yesterday the legal standing of two retired Court of Appeals justices in asking for a temporary restraining order to stop the Senate from playing the controversial “Hello, Garci” tapes.

During yesterday’s oral arguments, Manuel Lazaro, lawyer of retired justices Santiago Javier Ranada and Oswaldo Agcaoili, told SC justices that his clients are concerned about the Senate violating Republic Act 4200, the anti-wiretapping law.

“We are not interested in the parties involved,” he said. “If the tapes will be played in the Senate, the Senate will be committing a violation of RA 4200.”

However, Lazaro, under questioning by Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, admitted that his clients will not be directly affected by the playing of the controversial tapes in the Senate.

Gutierrez said Lazaro failed to show that there was illegal disbursement of public funds at the Senate hearings to justify his clients’ filing of a taxpayer’s suit.

“Then your locus standi (legal standing) is now affected,” she said.

“As a taxpayer, were there illegal disbursements of public funds? You cannot even tell the court how much will be spent (by the Senate)? As a citizen, will there be any injury on your clients if these tapes will be played in the Senate?”

In response, Lazaro said: “No, Your Honor.”

Chief Justice Reynato Puno said Congress has the inherent power to hold inquiries in aid of legislation even without any published rules and procedures.

“The Senate and House do not need published rules,” he said. “But they may agree to adopt the rules to have orderliness in their proceedings.”

Contrary to the arguments of Ranada and Agcaoili, the rights of persons appearing in inquiries are protected by the Bill of Rights, Puno said.

Lazaro failed to convince the SC justices that his clients, as members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, were justified in filing their petition.

“How come not even the president of the IBP was a petitioner?” Gutierrez told Lazaro.

“Is there a potential injury to the IBP if the Senate will play the tapes? You are not a party in the tapes. Why are you so interested? It should be (former elections commissioner Virgilio) Garcillano and the President.”

Gutierrez told Lazaro it would be best for Ranada and Agcaoili to allow the Senate to play the tapes as it involves questions on the integrity of the electoral process.

“Your clients say they are just exercising their public duty (in filing the petition), but they can be considered heroes of the day if they would allow the Senate to play the tapes as it involves the integrity of our electoral process,” she said.

Justice Antonio Carpio chided Lazaro for arguing that the “Hello, Garci” tapes are products of an illegal wiretap because of public perception and the statements of retired military intelligence agent Vidal Doble Jr.

“Because of public perception and because of Doble’s statements, I have no doubt that he is telling the truth,” Lazaro told the SC justices.

In their petition last Sept. 2, Ranada and Agcaoili said they were taxpayers, IBP members, and citizens raising an issue of “transcendental importance.”

They argued that under RA 4200, the mere possession of an unauthorized wiretapped material is already a violation of the law, and that a discussion of its contents or its transcript is prohibited.

The Constitution states that an illegal wiretap ìs inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding, they added.

Named respondent in the petition was the Senate, represented by Senate President Manuel Villar Jr.

The petitioners said the Senate could not start and continue with its probe into the alleged wiretapping that reportedly involved Garcillano and Mrs. Arroyo without first establishing the rules of procedure.

“Differently stated, the Senate or any of its respective committees may not validly conduct inquiries in aid of legislation until and unless the rules of procedures are first published,” read the petition.

Playing the tapes in the Senate will violate the rights to privacy of those allegedly caught in the recordings, Ranada and Agcaoili said. – Mike Frialde