Republic of the Philippines DECISION

SUPREME COURT
Manila NACHURA, J.:

EN BANC More than three years ago, tapes ostensibly containing a

wiretapped conversation purportedly between the President of the
G.R. No. 170338 December 23, 2008 Philippines and a high-ranking official of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) surfaced. They captured unprecedented
VIRGILIO O. GARCILLANO, petitioner, public attention and thrust the country into a controversy that
vs. placed the legitimacy of the present administration on the line,
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEES ON and resulted in the near-collapse of the Arroyo government. The
PUBLIC INFORMATION, PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY, tapes, notoriously referred to as the "Hello Garci" tapes, allegedly
NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY, INFORMATION AND contained the President’s instructions to COMELEC
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY, and SUFFRAGE AND Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano to manipulate in her favor
ELECTORAL REFORMS, respondents. results of the 2004 presidential elections. These recordings were
to become the subject of heated legislative hearings conducted
x----------------------x separately by committees of both Houses of Congress.1

G.R. No. 179275 December 23, 2008 In the House of Representatives (House), on June 8, 2005, then
Minority Floor Leader Francis G. Escudero delivered a privilege
speech, "Tale of Two Tapes," and set in motion a congressional
SANTIAGO JAVIER RANADA and OSWALDO D.
investigation jointly conducted by the Committees on Public
AGCAOILI, petitioners,
Information, Public Order and Safety, National Defense and
vs.
Security, Information and Communications Technology, and
THE SENATE OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Suffrage and Electoral Reforms (respondent House Committees).
REPRESENTED BY THE SENATE PRESIDENT THE
During the inquiry, several versions of the wiretapped
HONORABLE MANUEL VILLAR, respondents.
conversation emerged. But on July 5, 2005, National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) Director Reynaldo Wycoco, Atty. Alan Paguia
x----------------------x and the lawyer of former NBI Deputy Director Samuel Ong
submitted to the respondent House Committees seven alleged
MAJ. LINDSAY REX SAGGE, petitioner-in-intervention "original" tape recordings of the supposed three-hour taped
conversation. After prolonged and impassioned debate by the
x----------------------x committee members on the admissibility and authenticity of the
recordings, the tapes were eventually played in the chambers of
AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., BENIGNO NOYNOY C. the House.2
AQUINO, RODOLFO G. BIAZON, PANFILO M. LACSON,
LOREN B. LEGARDA, M.A. JAMBY A.S. MADRIGAL, and On August 3, 2005, the respondent House Committees decided
ANTONIO F. TRILLANES, respondents-intervenors to suspend the hearings indefinitely. Nevertheless, they decided
to prepare committee reports based on the said recordings and In the Senate’s plenary session the following day, a lengthy
the testimonies of the resource persons.3 debate ensued when Senator Richard Gordon aired his concern
on the possible transgression of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 42008 if
Alarmed by these developments, petitioner Virgilio O. Garcillano the body were to conduct a legislative inquiry on the matter. On
(Garcillano) filed with this Court a Petition for Prohibition and August 28, 2007, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago delivered a
Injunction, with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or privilege speech, articulating her considered view that the
Writ of Preliminary Injunction4 docketed as G.R. No. 170338. He Constitution absolutely bans the use, possession, replay or
prayed that the respondent House Committees be restrained from communication of the contents of the "Hello Garci" tapes.
using these tape recordings of the "illegally obtained" wiretapped However, she recommended a legislative investigation into the
conversations in their committee reports and for any other role of the Intelligence Service of the AFP (ISAFP), the Philippine
purpose. He further implored that the said recordings and any National Police or other government entities in the alleged illegal
reference thereto be ordered stricken off the records of the wiretapping of public officials.9
inquiry, and the respondent House Committees directed to desist
from further using the recordings in any of the House On September 6, 2007, petitioners Santiago Ranada and
proceedings.5 Oswaldo Agcaoili, retired justices of the Court of Appeals, filed
before this Court a Petition for Prohibition with Prayer for the
Without reaching its denouement, the House discussion and Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of
debates on the "Garci tapes" abruptly stopped. Preliminary Injunction,10 docketed as G.R. No. 179275, seeking to
bar the Senate from conducting its scheduled legislative inquiry.
After more than two years of quiescence, Senator Panfilo Lacson They argued in the main that the intended legislative inquiry
roused the slumbering issue with a privilege speech, "The violates R.A. No. 4200 and Section 3, Article III of the
Lighthouse That Brought Darkness." In his discourse, Senator Constitution.11
Lacson promised to provide the public "the whole unvarnished
truth – the what’s, when’s, where’s, who’s and why’s" of the As the Court did not issue an injunctive writ, the Senate
alleged wiretap, and sought an inquiry into the perceived proceeded with its public hearings on the "Hello Garci" tapes on
willingness of telecommunications providers to participate in September 7,12 1713 and October 1,14 2007.
nefarious wiretapping activities.
Intervening as respondents,15 Senators Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr.,
On motion of Senator Francis Pangilinan, Senator Lacson’s Benigno Noynoy C. Aquino, Rodolfo G. Biazon, Panfilo M.
speech was referred to the Senate Committee on National Lacson, Loren B. Legarda, M.A. Jamby A.S. Madrigal and
Defense and Security, chaired by Senator Rodolfo Biazon, who Antonio F. Trillanes filed their Comment16 on the petition on
had previously filed two bills6 seeking to regulate the sale, September 25, 2007.
purchase and use of wiretapping equipment and to prohibit the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) from performing electoral The Court subsequently heard the case on oral argument.17
duties.7
On October 26, 2007, Maj. Lindsay Rex Sagge, a member of the
ISAFP and one of the resource persons summoned by the
Senate to appear and testify at its hearings, moved to intervene presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends
as petitioner in G.R. No. 179275.18 for illumination of difficult constitutional questions." 22

On November 20, 2007, the Court resolved to consolidate G.R. However, considering that locus standi is a mere procedural
Nos. 170338 and 179275.19 technicality, the Court, in recent cases, has relaxed the stringent
direct injury test. David v. Macapagal-Arroyo23 articulates that a
It may be noted that while both petitions involve the "Hello Garci" "liberal policy has been observed, allowing ordinary citizens,
recordings, they have different objectives–the first is poised at members of Congress, and civic organizations to prosecute
preventing the playing of the tapes in the House and their actions involving the constitutionality or validity of laws,
subsequent inclusion in the committee reports, and the second regulations and rulings."24 The fairly recent Chavez v.
seeks to prohibit and stop the conduct of the Senate inquiry on Gonzales25 even permitted a non-member of the broadcast
the wiretapped conversation. media, who failed to allege a personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy, to challenge the acts of the Secretary of Justice and
The Court dismisses the first petition, G.R. No. 170338, and the National Telecommunications Commission. The majority, in
grants the second, G.R. No. 179275. the said case, echoed the current policy that "this Court has
repeatedly and consistently refused to wield procedural barriers
as impediments to its addressing and resolving serious legal
-I-
questions that greatly impact on public interest, in keeping with
the Court’s duty under the 1987 Constitution to determine
Before delving into the merits of the case, the Court shall first whether or not other branches of government have kept
resolve the issue on the parties’ standing, argued at length in themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws, and
their pleadings. that they have not abused the discretion given to them." 26

In Tolentino v. COMELEC,20 we explained that "‘[l]egal standing’ In G.R. No. 170338, petitioner Garcillano justifies his standing to
or locus standi refers to a personal and substantial interest in a initiate the petition by alleging that he is the person alluded to in
case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury the "Hello Garci" tapes. Further, his was publicly identified by the
because of the challenged governmental act x x x," thus, members of the respondent committees as one of the voices in
the recordings.27 Obviously, therefore, petitioner Garcillano
generally, a party will be allowed to litigate only when (1) stands to be directly injured by the House committees’ actions
he can show that he has personally suffered some actual and charges of electoral fraud. The Court recognizes his standing
or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal to institute the petition for prohibition.
conduct of the government; (2) the injury is fairly
traceable to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is In G.R. No. 179275, petitioners Ranada and Agcaoili justify their
likely to be redressed by a favorable action.21 standing by alleging that they are concerned citizens, taxpayers,
and members of the IBP. They are of the firm conviction that any
The gist of the question of standing is whether a party has attempt to use the "Hello Garci" tapes will further divide the
"alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy country. They wish to see the legal and proper use of public funds
as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the that will necessarily be defrayed in the ensuing public hearings.
They are worried by the continuous violation of the laws and seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents. The issues are of
individual rights, and the blatant attempt to abuse constitutional transcendental and paramount importance not only to the public
processes through the conduct of legislative inquiries purportedly but also to the Bench and the Bar, and should be resolved for the
in aid of legislation.28 guidance of all.34

Intervenor Sagge alleges violation of his right to due process Thus, in the exercise of its sound discretion and given the liberal
considering that he is summoned to attend the Senate hearings attitude it has shown in prior cases climaxing in the more recent
without being apprised not only of his rights therein through the case of Chavez, the Court recognizes the legal standing of
publication of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries petitioners Ranada and Agcaoili and intervenor Sagge.
in Aid of Legislation, but also of the intended legislation which
underpins the investigation. He further intervenes as a taxpayer - II -
bewailing the useless and wasteful expenditure of public funds
involved in the conduct of the questioned hearings.29 The Court, however, dismisses G.R. No. 170338 for being moot
and academic. Repeatedly stressed in our prior decisions is the
Given that petitioners Ranada and Agcaoili allege an interest in principle that the exercise by this Court of judicial power is limited
the execution of the laws and that intervenor Sagge asserts his to the determination and resolution of actual cases and
constitutional right to due process,30 they satisfy the requisite controversies.35 By actual cases, we mean existing conflicts
personal stake in the outcome of the controversy by merely being appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not conjectural or
citizens of the Republic. anticipatory, for otherwise the decision of the Court will amount to
an advisory opinion. The power of judicial inquiry does not extend
Following the Court’s ruling in Francisco, Jr. v. The House of to hypothetical questions because any attempt at abstraction
Representatives,31 we find sufficient petitioners Ranada’s and could only lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and to
Agcaoili’s and intervenor Sagge’s allegation that the continuous sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities.36 Neither will the Court
conduct by the Senate of the questioned legislative inquiry will determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief
necessarily involve the expenditure of public funds.32 It should be can be granted. A case becomes moot when its purpose has
noted that in Francisco, rights personal to then Chief Justice become stale.37 It is unnecessary to indulge in academic
Hilario G. Davide, Jr. had been injured by the alleged discussion of a case presenting a moot question as a judgment
unconstitutional acts of the House of Representatives, yet the thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of
Court granted standing to the petitioners therein for, as in this things, cannot be enforced.38
case, they invariably invoked the vindication of their own rights–
as taxpayers, members of Congress, citizens, individually or in a In G.R. No. 170338, petitioner Garcillano implores from the Court,
class suit, and members of the bar and of the legal profession– as aforementioned, the issuance of an injunctive writ to prohibit
which were also supposedly violated by the therein assailed the respondent House Committees from playing the tape
unconstitutional acts.33 recordings and from including the same in their committee report.
He likewise prays that the said tapes be stricken off the records of
Likewise, a reading of the petition in G.R. No. 179275 shows that the House proceedings. But the Court notes that the recordings
the petitioners and intervenor Sagge advance constitutional were already played in the House and heard by its
issues which deserve the attention of this Court in view of their members.39 There is also the widely publicized fact that the
committee reports on the "Hello Garci" inquiry were completed Recently, the Court had occasion to rule on this very same
and submitted to the House in plenary by the respondent question. In Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public
committees.40 Having been overtaken by these events, the Officers and Investigations,46 we said:
Garcillano petition has to be dismissed for being moot and
academic. After all, prohibition is a preventive remedy to restrain Fourth, we find merit in the argument of the OSG that
the doing of an act about to be done, and not intended to provide respondent Committees likewise violated Section 21 of
a remedy for an act already accomplished.41 Article VI of the Constitution, requiring that the inquiry be
in accordance with the "duly published rules of
- III - procedure." We quote the OSG’s explanation:

As to the petition in G.R. No. 179275, the Court grants the same. The phrase "duly published rules of procedure"
The Senate cannot be allowed to continue with the conduct of the requires the Senate of every Congress to publish
questioned legislative inquiry without duly published rules of its rules of procedure governing inquiries in aid of
procedure, in clear derogation of the constitutional requirement. legislation because every Senate is distinct from
the one before it or after it. Since Senatorial
Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides elections are held every three (3) years for one-
that "[t]he Senate or the House of Representatives, or any of its half of the Senate’s membership, the composition
respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of of the Senate also changes by the end of each
legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of term. Each Senate may thus enact a different set
procedure." The requisite of publication of the rules is intended to of rules as it may deem fit. Not having published
satisfy the basic requirements of due process.42 Publication is its Rules of Procedure, the subject hearings in
indeed imperative, for it will be the height of injustice to punish or aid of legislation conducted by the 14th Senate,
otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law or rule of are therefore, procedurally infirm.
which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive
one.43 What constitutes publication is set forth in Article 2 of the Justice Antonio T. Carpio, in his Dissenting and Concurring
Civil Code, which provides that "[l]aws shall take effect after 15 Opinion, reinforces this ruling with the following rationalization:
days following the completion of their publication either in the
Official Gazette, or in a newspaper of general circulation in the The present Senate under the 1987 Constitution is no
Philippines."44 longer a continuing legislative body. The present Senate
has twenty-four members, twelve of whom are elected
The respondents in G.R. No. 179275 admit in their pleadings and every three years for a term of six years each. Thus, the
even on oral argument that the Senate Rules of Procedure term of twelve Senators expires every three years,
Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation had been published in leaving less than a majority of Senators to continue
newspapers of general circulation only in 1995 and in into the next Congress. The 1987 Constitution, like the
2006.45 With respect to the present Senate of the 14th Congress, 1935 Constitution, requires a majority of Senators to
however, of which the term of half of its members commenced on "constitute a quorum to do business." Applying the same
June 30, 2007, no effort was undertaken for the publication of reasoning in Arnault v. Nazareno, the Senate under the
these rules when they first opened their session. 1987 Constitution is not a continuing body because less
 than majority of the Senators continue into the next matters, not in the same status, but as if presented for
Congress. The consequence is that the Rules of the first time. The logic and practicality of such a rule is
Procedure must be republished by the Senate after every readily apparent considering that the Senate of the
expiry of the term of twelve Senators.47 succeeding Congress (which will typically have a different
composition as that of the previous Congress) should not
The subject was explained with greater lucidity in be bound by the acts and deliberations of the Senate of
our Resolution48 (On the Motion for Reconsideration) in the same which they had no part. If the Senate is a continuing body
case, viz.: even with respect to the conduct of its business, then
pending matters will not be deemed terminated with the
On the nature of the Senate as a "continuing body," this expiration of one Congress but will, as a matter of course,
Court sees fit to issue a clarification. Certainly, there is no continue into the next Congress with the same status.
debate that the Senate as an institution is "continuing,"
as it is not dissolved as an entity with each national This dichotomy of the continuity of the Senate as an
election or change in the composition of its members. institution and of the opposite nature of the conduct of its
However, in the conduct of its day-to-day business the business is reflected in its Rules. The Rules of the Senate
Senate of each Congress acts separately and (i.e. the Senate’s main rules of procedure) states:
independently of the Senate of the Congress before it.
The Rules of the Senate itself confirms this when it states: RULE LI
AMENDMENTS TO, OR REVISIONS OF, THE
RULE XLIV RULES
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
SEC. 136. At the start of each session in which
SEC. 123. Unfinished business at the end of the the Senators elected in the preceding elections
session shall be taken up at the next session in shall begin their term of office, the President may
the same status. endorse the Rules to the appropriate committee
for amendment or revision.
All pending matters and proceedings shall
terminate upon the expiration of one (1) The Rules may also be amended by means of a
Congress, but may be taken by the succeeding motion which should be presented at least one
Congress as if present for the first time. day before its consideration, and the vote of the
majority of the Senators present in the session
Undeniably from the foregoing, all pending matters and shall be required for its approval.
proceedings, i.e., unpassed bills and even legislative
investigations, of the Senate of a particular Congress are RULE LII
considered terminated upon the expiration of that DATE OF TAKING EFFECT
Congress and it is merely optional on the Senate of the
succeeding Congress to take up such unfinished
 SEC. 137. These Rules shall take effect on the language it had used in its main rules regarding
date of their adoption and shall remain in force effectivity.
until they are amended or repealed.
Respondents justify their non-observance of the constitutionally
Section 136 of the Senate Rules quoted above takes into mandated publication by arguing that the rules have never been
account the new composition of the Senate after an amended since 1995 and, despite that, they are published in
election and the possibility of the amendment or revision booklet form available to anyone for free, and accessible to the
of the Rules at the start of each session in which the public at the Senate’s internet web page.49
newly elected Senators shall begin their term.
The Court does not agree. The absence of any amendment to the
However, it is evident that the Senate has determined that rules cannot justify the Senate’s defiance of the clear and
its main rules are intended to be valid from the date of unambiguous language of Section 21, Article VI of the
their adoption until they are amended or repealed. Such Constitution. The organic law instructs, without more, that the
language is conspicuously absent from the Rules. Senate or its committees may conduct inquiries in aid of
The Rules simply state "(t)hese Rules shall take effect legislation only in accordance with duly published rules of
seven (7) days after publication in two (2) newspapers of procedure, and does not make any distinction whether or not
general circulation." The latter does not explicitly provide these rules have undergone amendments or revision. The
for the continued effectivity of such rules until they are constitutional mandate to publish the said rules prevails over any
amended or repealed. In view of the difference in the custom, practice or tradition followed by the Senate.
language of the two sets of Senate rules, it cannot be
presumed that the Rules (on legislative inquiries) would Justice Carpio’s response to the same argument raised by the
continue into the next Congress. The Senate of the next respondents is illuminating:
Congress may easily adopt different rules for its
legislative inquiries which come within the rule on The publication of the Rules of Procedure in the website
unfinished business. of the Senate, or in pamphlet form available at the
Senate, is not sufficient under the Tañada v. Tuvera ruling
The language of Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution which requires publication either in the Official Gazette or
requiring that the inquiry be conducted in accordance with in a newspaper of general circulation. The Rules of
the duly published rules of procedure is categorical. It is Procedure even provide that the rules "shall take effect
incumbent upon the Senate to publish the rules for its seven (7) days after publication in two (2) newspapers of
legislative inquiries in each Congress or otherwise make general circulation," precluding any other form of
the published rules clearly state that the same shall be publication. Publication in accordance with Tañada is
effective in subsequent Congresses or until they are mandatory to comply with the due process requirement
amended or repealed to sufficiently put public on notice. because the Rules of Procedure put a person’s liberty at
risk. A person who violates the Rules of Procedure could
If it was the intention of the Senate for its present rules on be arrested and detained by the Senate.
legislative inquiries to be effective even in the next
Congress, it could have easily adopted the same
The invocation by the respondents of the provisions of R.A. No. SO ORDERED.
8792,50 otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of
2000, to support their claim of valid publication through the ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
internet is all the more incorrect. R.A. 8792 considers an Associate Justice
electronic data message or an electronic document as the
functional equivalent of a written document only for evidentiary
purposes.51 In other words, the law merely recognizes the
admissibility in evidence (for their being the original) of electronic
data messages and/or electronic documents.52 It does not make
the internet a medium for publishing laws, rules and regulations. WE CONCUR:

Given this discussion, the respondent Senate Committees, REYNATO S. PUNO

therefore, could not, in violation of the Constitution, use its Chief Justice
unpublished rules in the legislative inquiry subject of these
consolidated cases. The conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
by the Senate has to be deferred until it shall have caused the Associate Justice Associate Justice
publication of the rules, because it can do so only "in accordance
with its duly published rules of procedure." ANTONIO T. CARPIO MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Very recently, the Senate caused the publication of the Senate
*RENATO C. CORONA CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation in
Associate Justice Associate Justice
the October 31, 2008 issues of Manila Bulletin and Malaya. While
we take judicial notice of this fact, the recent publication does not ADOLFO S. AZCUNA DANTE O. TINGA
cure the infirmity of the inquiry sought to be prohibited by the Associate Justice Associate Justice
instant petitions. Insofar as the consolidated cases are
concerned, the legislative investigation subject thereof still could MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
not be undertaken by the respondent Senate Committees, Associate Justice Associate Justice
because no published rules governed it, in clear contravention of
the Constitution. RUBEN T. REYES TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
With the foregoing disquisition, the Court finds it unnecessary to
discuss the other issues raised in the consolidated petitions. ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
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 CERTIFICATION
inquiry in aid of legislation centered on the "Hello Garci" tapes.
 11
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby Id. at 7-13.
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the 12
Id. at 24.
opinion of the Court.
13
Id. at 44.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice 14
Memorandum of Respondents-Intervenors, p. 6.

15
Rollo (G.R. No. 179275), pp. 68-70.

16
Id. at 71-90.
Footnotes
17
Id. at 62. The Court identified the following issues for
* On leave. discussion in the October 2, 2007 Oral Argument:
1
Rollo (G.R. No. 179275), p. 168. 1. Whether the petitioners have locus standi to
bring this suit.
2
Rollo (G.R. No. 170338), pp. 7-9.
2. Whether the Rules of Procedure of the Senate
3
Id. at 9. and the Senate Committees governing the
conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation have been
4
Id. at 1-38. published, in accordance with Section 21, Article
VI of the Constitution. Corollarily:
5
Id. at 36-38.
(a) Whether these Rules must be
6
Rollo (G.R. No. 179275), pp. 215-220. published by every Congress.

7
Id. at 169. (b) What mode/s of publication will comply
with the constitutional requirement.
8
An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other
Related Violations of the Privacy of Communications and 3. Whether the inquiry, which is centered on the
for Other Purposes. so-called "Garci tapes," violates Section 3, Article
III of the Constitution and/or Republic Act No.
9 4200. (Id. at 66.)
Rollo (G.R. No. 179275), pp. 169-170.

10
Id. at 3-17.
18 34
Motion for Leave to Intervene and Petition-in- Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona, Jr., G.R. No. 113375,
Intervention filed on October 26, 2007. May 5, 1994, 232 SCRA 110, 139.

19 35
Resolution dated November 20, 2007. Dumlao v. COMELEC, 184 Phil. 369, 377 (1980). This
case explains the standards that have to be followed in
20
465 Phil. 385, 402 (2004). the exercise of the power of judicial review, namely: (1)
the existence of an appropriate case; (2) an interest
21
Tolentino v. Commission on Elections, id. personal and substantial by the party raising the
constitutional question; (3) the plea that the function be
22 exercised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the necessity
Province of Batangas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 152774, May
that the constitutional question be passed upon in order to
27, 2004, 429 SCRA 736, 755.
decide the case.
23
G.R. Nos. 171396, 171409, 171485, 171483, 171400,
La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos, 465
36
171489 and 171424, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 160.
Phil. 860, 889-890 (2004).
24
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, id. at 218. 37
Rufino v. Endriga, G.R. Nos. 139554 and 139565, July
25
21, 2006, 496 SCRA 13, 46.
G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008, 545 SCRA 441.
38
26
Lanuza, Jr. v. Yuchengco, G.R. No. 157033, March 28,
Id. 2005, 454 SCRA 130, 138.
27
Reply in G.R. No. 170338, pp. 36-37. 39
Rollo (G.R. No. 170338), p. 9.
28
Rollo (G.R. No. 179275), p. 4. 40
See news article "Separate findings, no closure" by
29
Michael Lim Umbac published in The Philippine Daily
Petition-in-Intervention, p. 3. Inquirer on March 29, 2006; News item "5 House
committees in ‘Garci’ probe file report on Monday"
30
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, supra note 23, at 223. published in The Manila Bulletin on March 25, 2006.
31 41
460 Phil. 830 (2003). Simon, Jr. v. Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No.
100150, January 5, 1994, 229 SCRA 117, 135-136;
32
Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives, id. at Agustin v. De la Fuente, 84 Phil. 515, 517 (1949).
897.
42
Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, A
33
Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives, supra Commentary, 1996 ed., p. 679.
note 31, at 895.
43
Tañada v. Tuvera, 220 Phil. 422, 432-433 (1985). such legal effect, or that it is merely referred to in
that electronic data message.
44
As amended on June 18, 1987 by Executive Order No.
200 entitled "Providing for the Publication of Laws Either Sec. 7. Legal Recognition of Electronic
in the Official Gazette or in a Newspaper of General Documents. – Electronic documents shall have
Circulation in the Philippines as a Requirement for their the legal effect, validity or enforceability as any
Effectivity". other document or legal writing, and –

45
Rollo (G.R. No. 179275), p. 179; Memorandum of (a) Where the law requires a document to be in
Respondents-Intervenors, pp. 9-10. writing, that requirement is met by an electronic
document if the said electronic document
46
G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008, 549 SCRA 77, 135- maintains its integrity and reliability, and can be
136. authenticated so as to be usable for subsequent
reference, in that –
47
Id. at 297-298.
(i) The electronic document has remained
48
Dated September 4, 2008. complete and unaltered, apart from the
addition of any endorsement and any
49 authorized change, or any change which
TSN, Oral Arguments, March 4, 2008, (G.R. No.
arises in the normal course of
179275), pp. 413-414.
communication, storage and display; and
50
Entitled "An Act Providing for the Recognition and Use
(ii) The electronic document is reliable in
of Electronic Commercial and Non-Commercial
the light of the purpose for which it was
Transactions and Documents, Penalties for Unlawful Use
generated and in the light of all the
Thereof and For Other Purposes," approved on June 14,
relevant circumstances.
2000.

51 (b) Paragraph (a) applies whether the requirement

MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong
therein is in the form of an obligation or whether
Corporation, G.R. No. 170633, October 15, 2007, 536
the law simply provides consequences for the
SCRA 408. (Emphasis supplied.)
document not being presented or retained in its
52
original form.
Sections 6, 7 and 10 of R.A. No. 8792 read:
(c) Where the law requires that a document be
Sec. 6. Legal Recognition of Data Messages. - presented or retained in its original form, that
Information shall not be denied legal effect, requirement is met by an electronic document if –
validity or enforceability solely on the grounds that
it is in the data message purporting to give rise to
 (i) There exists a reliable assurance as to of being displayed to the person to whom
the integrity of the document from the time it is to be presented.
when it was first generated in its final
form; and (2) Paragraph (1) applies whether the requirement
therein is in the form of an obligation or whether
(ii) That document is capable of being the law simply provides consequences for the
displayed to the person to whom it is to be information not being presented or retained in its
presented: Provided, That no provision of original form.
this Act shall apply to vary any and all
requirements of existing laws on (3) For the purposes of subparagraph (a) of
formalities required in the execution of paragraph (1):
documents for their validity.
(a) the criteria for assessing integrity shall
For evidentiary purposes, an electronic document be whether the information has remained
shall be the functional equivalent of a written complete and unaltered, apart from the
document under existing laws. addition of any endorsement and any
change which arises in the normal course
This Act does not modify any statutory rule of communication, storage and display;
relating to the admissibility of electronic data and
messages or electronic documents, except the
rules relating to authentication and best evidence. (b) the standard of reliability required shall
be assessed in the light of the purpose for
Sec. 10. Original Documents. – (1) Where the law which the information was generated and
requires information to be presented or retained in in the light of all relevant circumstances.
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