Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
171
Same; Same; Same; In recent cases, Court has relaxed the stringent
direct injury test.Considering that locus standi is a mere procedural
technicality, the Court, in recent cases, has relaxed the stringent direct injury
test. David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160 (2006), articulates that a
liberal policy has been observed, allowing ordinary citizens, members of
Congress, and civic organizations to prosecute actions involving the
constitutionality or validity of laws, regulations and rulings. The fairly
recent Chavez v. Gonzales, 545 SCRA 441 (2008), even permitted a nonmember of the broadcast 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 National Telecommunications Commission. The majority, in 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 questions that greatly impact on
public interest, in keeping with the Courts duty under the 1987 Constitution
to determine whether or not other branches of government have kept
themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws, and that they
have not abused the discretion given to them.
Same; Same; Moot and Academic; Court dismissed G.R. No. 170338 for
being moot and academic; The exercise by the Court of judicial power is
limited to the determination and resolution of actual cases and
controversies.The Court, however, dismisses G.R. No. 170338 for being
moot and academic. Repeatedly stressed in our prior decisions is the
principle that the exercise by this Court of judicial power is limited to the
determination and resolution of actual cases and controversies. By actual
cases, we mean existing conflicts appropriate or ripe for judicial
determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, for otherwise the decision of
the Court will amount to an advisory opinion. The power of judicial inquiry
does
172
17
2
Same; Same; The absence of any amendment to the rules cannot justify
the Senates defiance of the clear and unambiguous language of Section 21,
Article VI of the Constitution; The constitutional mandate to publish the said
rules prevails over any custom, practice or tradition followed by the
17
4
published in the 14th Congress. In fact, the Court ruled on the issue of
executive privilege raised in said proceedings. It struck down only the
17
6
publication suffices for a law or rule to have continuing effect is when there
are circumstances or factors that interrupt this continuity.The exception
to the general rule that one-time publication suffices for a law or rule to have
continuing effect is when there are circumstances or factors that interrupt
this continuity. An example is the discontinuation of the existence of the
House of Representatives as a legislative body, which terminates the
effectivity of its published Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries and
requires the publication of these rules in the succeeding Congress for them
to take effect. As discussed above and in my Dissents to the March 25 Neri
Decision and September 4 Neri Resolution, the Senate, unlike the House
of Representatives, is a continuing body. Thus, contrary to the holding of the
ponencia, the Senates Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries, sans
amendment, need not be published by the Senate of every Congress and
need not also state that they shall remain in force until they are amended or
repealed for them to be effective from one Congress to the next. Quite the
opposite of the ponencias ruling, in the absence of language stating that the
Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries shall not continue in effect from one
Congress to the next, these rules shall have continuing effect.
Same; Anti-Wiretapping Law; What Republic Act (R.A.) 4200 penalizes
are the acts of secretly overhearing, intercepting or recording private
communications by means of the devices enumerated therein.A private
communication is characterized as such based not on the content of the
communication, but on the context that it was said in private and not for
public consumption. That the content or nature of the communication is
immaterial was ruled in Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, 248 SCRA 590
(1995), viz.: ... the nature of the conversations is immaterial to a violation
of the statute. The substance of the same need not be specifically alleged
in the information. What R.A. 4200 penalizes are the acts of secretly
overhearing, intercepting or recording private communications by means
of the devices enumerated therein. The mere allegation that an individual
made a secret recording of a private communication by means of a tape
recorder would suffice to constitute an offense under Section 1 of R.A. 4200.
177
Same; Same; Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4200 provides for exceptions
when wiretapping is allowed by written order of the court.R.A. No. 4200,
17
8
cured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall
troversies. While it is true that the Court is not absolutely precluded from
resolving issues that are otherwise moot, no compelling circumstance is
present here that would warrant the exercise of judicial review.
18
0
18
2
18
4
inclusion in the committee reports, and the second seeks to prohibit and
stop the conduct of the Senate inquiry on the wiretapped conversation.
The Court dismisses the first petition, G.R. No. 170338, and grants
the second, G.R. No. 179275.
_______________
17 Id., at p. 62. The Court identified the following issues for discussion in the October
2, 2007 Oral Argument:
1. Whether the petitioners have locus standi to bring this suit.
2. Whether the Rules of Procedure of the Senate and the Senate Committees
governing the conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation have been published, in
accordance with Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution. Corollarily:
(a) Whether these Rules must be published by every Congress.
(b) What mode/s of publication will comply with the constitutional
requirement.
3. Whether the inquiry, which is centered on the so-called Garci tapes, violates
Section 3, Article III of the Constitution and/or Republic Act No. 4200. (Id., at p. 66.)
18 Motion for Leave to Intervene and Petition-in-Intervention filed on October 26,
2007.
19 Resolution dated November 20, 2007.
185
The gist of the question of standing is whether a party has alleged such
18
6
18
8
attitude it has shown in prior cases climaxing in the more recent case of
Chavez, the Court recognizes the legal standing of petitioners Ranada
and Agcaoili and intervenor Sagge.
- II The Court, however, dismisses G.R. No. 170338 for being moot and
academic. Repeatedly stressed in our prior decisions is the principle
that the exercise by this Court of judicial power is limited to the
determination and resolution of actual cases and controversies.35 By
actual cases, we mean existing
_______________
33 Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives, supra note 31, at p. 895; p. 136.
34 Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona, Jr., G.R. No. 113375, May 5, 1994, 232 SCRA 110,
139.
35 Dumlao v. Commission on Elections, 184 Phil. 369, 377; 95 SCRA 392, 400
(1980). This case explains the standards that have to be followed in the exercise of the
power of judicial review, namely: (1) the existence of an appropriate case; (2) an interest
personal and
189
that the said tapes be stricken off the records of the House proceedings.
But the Court notes that the recordings were already played in the
House and heard by its members.39 There is also the widely publicized
fact that the committee reports on the Hello Garci inquiry were
completed and submitted to the House in
_______________
substantial by the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the plea that the function
be exercised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the necessity that the constitutional
question be passed upon in order to decide the case.
36 La Bugal-Blaan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos, 465 Phil. 860, 889-890; 441
SCRA 148, 178 (2004).
37 Rufino v. Endriga, G.R. Nos. 139554 and 139565, July 21, 2006, 496 SCRA 13,
46.
38 Lanuza, Jr. v. Yuchengco, G.R. No. 157033, March 28, 2005, 454 SCRA 130, 138.
39 Rollo (G.R. No. 170338), p. 9.
190
19
0
19
2
Senate of the Congress before it. The Rules of the Senate itself confirms this
when it states:
RULE XLIV UNFINISHED BUSINESS
SEC. 123. Unfinished business at the end of the session shall be
taken up at the next session in the same status.
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.
Undeniably from the foregoing, all pending matters and proceedings, i.e.
unpassed bills and even legislative investigations, of the Senate of a
particular Congress are considered terminated upon the expiration of that
Congress and it is merely optional on the Senate of the succeeding Congress
to take up such unfinished matters, not in the same status, but as if
presented for the first time. The logic and practicality of such a rule is
readily apparent considering that the Senate of the succeeding Congress
(which will typically have a different composition as that of the previous
Congress) should not be bound by the acts and deliberations of the Senate of
which they had no part. If the Senate is a continuing body even with respect
to the conduct of its business, then pending matters will not be deemed
terminated with the expiration of one Congress but will, as a matter of
course, continue into the next Congress with the same status.
This dichotomy of the continuity of the Senate as an institution and of the
opposite nature of the conduct of its business is reflected in its Rules. The
Rules of the Senate (i.e. the Senates main rules of procedure) states:
RULE LI AMENDMENTS TO, OR REVISIONS OF, THE RULES
SEC. 136. At the start of each session in which the Senators
elected in the preceding elections shall begin their term of office, the
19
4
If it was the intention of the Senate for its present rules on legislative
inquiries to be effective even in the next Congress, it could have
195
easily adopted the same language it had used in its main rules regarding
effectivity.
196
19
6
19
8
shall have caused the publication of the rules, because it can do so only
in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.
Very recently, the Senate caused the publication of the Senate Rules
of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation in the October
31, 2008 issues of Manila Bulletin and Malaya. While we take judicial
notice of this fact, the recent publication does not cure the infirmity of
the inquiry sought to be prohibited by the instant petitions. Insofar as
the consolidated cases are concerned, the legislative investigation
subject thereof still could not be undertaken by the respondent Senate
Committees, because no published rules governed it, in clear
contravention of the Constitution.
With the foregoing disquisition, the Court finds it unnecessary to
discuss the other issues raised in the consolidated petitions.
_______________
(2) Paragraph (1) applies whether the requirement therein is in the form of an
obligation or whether the law simply provides consequences for the information not
being presented or retained in its original form.
(3) For the purposes of subparagraph (a) of paragraph (1):
(a) the criteria for assessing integrity shall be whether the information has
remained complete and unaltered, apart from the addition of any endorsement
and any change which arises in the normal course of communication, storage and
display; and
(b) the standard of reliability required shall be assessed in the light of the
purpose for which the information was generated and in the light of all relevant
circumstances.
199
20
0
First, the issues in G.R. No. 179275. These were delineated in the
Oral Argument held on October 2, 2007 as follows:
1. Whether the petitioners have locus standi to bring the suit.
2. Whether the Rules of Procedure of the Senate and the Senate
Committees governing the conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation have
been published, in accordance with Section 21, Article VI of the
Constitution. Corollarily:
(a) Whether these Rules must be published by every Congress.
(b) What mode/s of publication will comply with the
constitutional requirement.
3.
Whether the inquiry, which is centered on the so-called Garci
tapes violates Section 3, Article III of the Constitution and/or Republic Act
No. 4200.1
the one before it or after it. Since Senatorial elections are held every
three (3) years for one-half of the Senates membership, the
composition of the Senate also changes by the end of each term. Each
Senate may thus enact a different set of rules as it may deem fit. Not
having published its Rules of Procedure, the subject hearings in
aid of legislation conducted by the 14th Senate, are therefore,
procedurally infirm.4
_______________
Senate Committee on National Defense and Security, G.R. No. 180643, September 4,
2008, 564 SCRA 152.
4 Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations,
Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, and Senate Committee on National Defense
and Security, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008, 549 SCRA 77, 135-136.
202
20
2
gress) should not be bound by the acts and deliberations of the Senate of
which they had no part. If the Senate is a continuing body even with respect
to the conduct of its business, then pending matters will not be deemed
terminated with the expiration of one Congress but will, as a matter of
course, continue into the next Congress with the same status.
This dichotomy of the continuity of the Senate as an institution and of the
opposite nature of the conduct of its business is reflected in its Rules. The
Rules of the Senate (i.e. the Senates main Rules of Procedure) states:
RULE LI AMENDMENTS TO, OR REVISIONS OF, THE RULES
SEC. 136. At the start of each session in which the Senators
elected in the preceding elections shall begin their term of office,
the President may endorse the Rules to the appropriate committee
for amendment or revision.
The Rules may also be amended by means of a motion which
should be presented at least one day before its consideration, and the
vote of the majority of the Senators present in the session shall be
required for its approval. (emphasis supplied)
RULE LII DATE OF TAKING EFFECT
SEC. 137. These Rules shall take effect on the date of their
adoption and shall remain in force until they are amended or
repealed. (emphasis supplied)
Section 136 of the Senate Rules quoted above takes into account the new
20
4
However, it is evident that the Senate has determined that its main rules
are intended to be valid from the date of their adoption until they are
amended or repealed. Such language is conspicuously absent from the Rules.
The Rules simply state (t)hese Rules shall take effect seven (7) days after
publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation. (Section 24, Rules
of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation) The latter does not
explicitly provide for the continued effectivity of such rules until they are
amended or repealed. In view of the difference in the language of the two
sets of Senate rules, it cannot be presumed that the Rules (on legislative
inquiries) would continue into the next Congress. The Senate of the next
Congress may easily adopt different rules for its legislative inquiries which
come within the rule on unfinished business.
The language of Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution requiring that
the inquiry be conducted in accordance with the duly published rules of
procedure is categorical. It is incumbent upon the Senate to publish the
rules for its legislative inquiries in each Congress or otherwise make the
published rules clearly state that the same shall be effective in subsequent
Congresses or until they are amended or repealed to sufficiently put public
on notice.
If it was the intention of the Senate for its present rules on legislative
inquiries to be effective even in the next Congress, it could have easily
adopted the same language it had used in its main rules regarding effectivity.
Lest the Court be misconstrued, it should likewise be stressed that
not all orders issued or proceedings conducted pursuant to the subject
Rules are null and void. Only those that result in violation of the rights
of witnesses should be considered null and void, considering that the
rationale for the publication is to protect the rights of witnesses as
expressed in Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution. Sans such
violation, orders and proceedings are considered valid and effective.5
(emphasis supplied)
_______________
5 Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations,
Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, and
205
20
6
take judicial notice of the fact, the recent publication does not cure the
infirmity of the inquiry sought to be prohibited by the instant petitions. In so
far as the consolidated cases are concerned, the legislative investigation
subject thereof still could not be undertaken by the respondent Senate
Committees, because no published rules govern it, in clear
contravention of the Constitution.6 (emphasis supplied)
While the ponencia cites the Neri Ruling to support its conclusion
that the subject investigation cannot be conducted without published
rules, I submit that it fails to adhere to the Neri Ruling, as the latter
emphasizes that not all orders issued or proceedings conducted
pursuant to the subject Rules are null and void. Only those that result
in violation of the rights of witnesses should be considered null and
void, considering that the rationale for the publication is to protect the
rights of witnesses as expressed in Section 21, Article VI of the
Constitution. Sans such violation, orders and proceedings are
considered valid and effective.
It will be recalled that in the March 25 Neri Decision, the Court
struck down not the entire proceedings of the Senate investigation
on the NBN-ZTE deal for want of published Rules of Procedure
Governing Inquiries, but only the Order dated January 30, 2008,
citing petitioner Romulo L. Neri in contempt of the Senate Committees
and directing his arrest and detention (January 30 Contempt Order) as
stated in the dispositive portion of the Decision.7 A
_______________
6 Ponencia.
7 Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations,
Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, and Senate Committee on National Defense
and Security, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008, 549 SCRA 77, 139. The dispositive
portion reads, viz.:
207
208
20
8
21
0
But in the same breath, it assailed the validity of the Rules of Procedure
Governing Inquiries and held that orders issued and proceedings
conducted pursuant to said rules, which result in the violation of rights
of witnesses were null and void, viz.:
The language of Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution requiring that
the inquiry be conducted in accordance with the duly published rules of
procedure is categorical. It is incumbent upon the Senate to publish the
rules for its legislative inquiries in each Congress or otherwise make the
published rules clearly state that the same shall be effective in subsequent
Congresses or until they are amended or repealed to sufficiently put the
public on notice.
If it was the intention of the Senate for its present rules on legislative
inquiries to be effective even in the next Congress, it could have easily
adopted the same language it had used in its main rules regarding effectivity.
Lest the Court be misconstrued, it should likewise be stressed that not all
orders issued or proceedings conducted pursuant to the subject Rules are null
and void. Only those that result in violation of
_______________
9 Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, Senate
Committee on Trade and Commerce, and Senate Committee on National Defense and Security,
G.R. No. 180643, September 4, 2008, pp. 40-41; pp. 226-227.
211
the rights of witnesses should be considered null and void, considering that
21
2
21
4
Rules, adopted under the regime of the 1987 Constitution, do not depart
from the provisions of the Senate Rules adopted under the 1935
Constitution, viz.:
Chapter XLVI Unfinished Business in the Senate
Sec. 108. Unfinished business at the end of one session shall not be
affected by the closing of same, but shall be taken up again at the next
session in the same status in which it was.
_______________
12 1 Journal of the House of Representatives, July 23, 2007.
13 See 13th Cong. Rules of the House of Representatives, adopted October 27, 2004; 12th
Cong. Rules of the House of Representatives, adopted October 22, 2002; 11th Cong. Rules of the
House of Representatives, adopted August 31, 1999; 10th Cong. Rules of the House of
Representatives, adopted July 24, 1995.
216
21
6
Section 3. The term of office of Senators shall be six years and shall begin
on the thirtieth day of December next following their election. The first Senators
elected under this Constitution shall, in the manner provided by law, be divided
equally into three groups, the Senators of the first group to serve for a term of six
years; those of the second group, for four years; and those of the third group, for
two years.
17 1987 Phil. Const., Art. VI, 4 in relation to Art. XVIII, 2 provides, viz.:
Art. VI, Sec. 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and
shall commence, unless otherwise provided by
217
In sum, the Philippine Senate Rules under both the 1935 and the
1987 Constitutions and the Standing Rules of the
_______________
law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election.
Art. XVIII, Sec. 2. x x x
Of the Senators elected in the election in 1992, the first twelve obtaining the
highest number of votes shall serve for six years and the remaining twelve for
three years.
18 Standing Rules of the Senate, revised to September 14, 2007.
218
21
8
Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, and Senate Committee on National Defense
and Security, G.R. No. 180643, September 4, 2008, p. 44; p. 230.
219
22
0
22
2
22
4
or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a
dictaphone or dictagraph or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however
otherwise described:
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the
act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess
any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or
copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either
before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this
law; or to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to
communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to
furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other
person: Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as
evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses
mentioned in Section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.
Section 2. Any person who willfully or knowingly does or who shall
aid, permit, or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful
in the preceding section or who violates the provisions of the following
section or of any order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes
such violation shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment
for not less than six months or more than six years and with the accessory
penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if the
offender be a public official at the time of the commission of the offense,
and, if the offender is an alien he shall be subject to deportation
proceedings. (emphases supplied)
22
6
for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any of such crimes; and (3)
that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
(emphasis supplied)
To further give teeth to the above prohibition, R.A. No. 4200 makes
illegally wiretapped communications inadmissible in any proceeding,
viz.:
22
8
Mr. Doble. Ang nasa isip po kasi naming noon since na galing sa
military hierarchy ang order, we assume that is a legal order, Your Honor.29
23
0
thus not liable for violating this law in the same manner that, by way of
exception, they are not liable for illegal possession of firearms where
the firearm is presented in evidence in a case involving the prosecution
of a violation of R.A. No. 8294.32 This is true despite the absence of
such an exception to illegal possession, in contradistinction to the
Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, which explicitly provides
the following exception to infringement of copyright under Section
184(l)(k): Any use made of a work for the purpose of any judicial
proceedings or for the giving of professional advice by a legal
practitioner.
For similar reasons, another exception that ought to be read into
Sections 1 and 4 of R.A. No. 4200 is the use and
_______________
31 Lanot, et al. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 164858, November 16, 2006,
507 SCRA 114.
32 An Act Amending the Provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1866, As Amended,
Entitled Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in,
Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives or Instruments Used
in the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives, and Imposing Stiffer
Penalties for Certain Violations Thereof, and for Relevant Purposes.
231
23
2
23
4
The first prayer is moot and academic, as the Garci tapes were
already played in the session floor of the House of Representatives on
July 5, 2005.38 The second prayer is also moot and academic, as the
subject records of proceedings and reports belong to the House of
Representatives of the Thirteenth Congress, which has already been
terminated. The House of Representatives not being a continuous body,
the current House of Representatives of the Fourteenth Congress is
different from the House of Representatives of the Thirteenth Congress.
23
6
appeared during the public hearings, nothing substantial was presented to help ferret out
the truth, said the minority report.
Lost opportunity
The report said that the 14 public hearings could have finally be the moment for
Congress to address the lingering problem of election cheating, but with the way the
witnesses conducted themselves, the opportunity was lost.
The minority report would be appended to the main report, said Santos.
237
238
23
8
tions since any attempt at abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren
legal questions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities.
6
Anent the first issue, I agree with the ponencia and the dissenting
opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Reynato Puno that petitioners Santiago
Javier Ranada and Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, plus intervenor Maj. Lindsay
Rex Sagge, possess the requisite locus standi to bring the suit.
Courts should not be shackled by stringent rules which would result
in manifest injustice. Rules of procedure are
_______________
9 Ferris, The Law of Extraordinary Remedies, p. 418.
10 Montes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143797, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 432.
11 Rollo, G.R. No. 179275, p. 94.
240
24
0
own rules and excepted a particular case from their operation whenever
the higher interests of justice so require.13
There is no question that the issues raised by petitioners Ranada and
Agcaoili and intervener Sagge are of paramount importance. Thus, any
procedural barrier to their suit should be put aside.
Now to the second issuethe meat of the second petition.
Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution states:
The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective
committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with
its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in
or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
21, 1992 in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and Philippine Star during the 9th
Congress.
The Senate again published its said rules on December 1, 2006 in the
Philippine Star and Philippine Daily Inquirer during the 13th Congress.
That the Senate published its rules of procedure twice more than complied
with the Constitutional requirement.
I submit that the Senate remains a continuing body under the 1987
Constitution. That the Senate is a continuing body is premised on the
staggered terms of its members, the idea being to ensure stability of
governmental policies. This is evident from the deliberations of the framers
of the Constitution, thus:
MR. RODRIGO. x x x
I would like to state that in the United States Federal Congress, the
term of the members of the Lower House is only two years. We have
been used to a term of four years here but I think three years is long
enough. But they will be allowed to run for reelection any number of
times. In this way, we remedy the too frequent elections every two
years. We will have elections every three years under the scheme
and we will have a continuing Senate. Every election, 12 of 24
Senators will be elected, so that 12 Senators will remain in
_______________
14 G.R. No. 180643, September 4, 2008.
242
24
2
Committee say?
MR. SUAREZ. The Committee accepts the Davide proposal, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
The Senate does not cease to be a continuing body merely because only
half of its members continue to the next Congress. To my mind, even a
lesser number of Senators continuing into the next Congress will still make
the Senate a continuing body. The Senate must be viewed as a collective
body. It is an institution quite apart from the Senators composing it. The
Senate as an institution cannot be equated to its present occupants. It is
indivisible. It is not the sum total of all sitting Senators at any given time.
Senators come and go but the very institution of the Senate remains. It is this
indivisible institution which should be viewed as continuing.
The argument that the Senate is not a continuing body because it lacks
quorum to do business after every midterm or presidential elections is
flawed. It does not take into account that the term of office of a Senator is
fixed by the Constitution. There is no vacancy in the office of outgoing
Senators during midterm or presidential elections. Article VI, Section 4 of
the 1987 Constitution provides:
16
_______________
15 Constitutional Commission Record (1986), p. 208.
16 Id., at p. 434.
243
The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence,
unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next
following their election.
The term of a Senator starts at noon of June 30 next following their
election and shall end before noon of June 30 six years after. The
constitutional provision aims to prevent a vacuum in the office of an
outgoing Senator during elections, which is fixed under the Constitution
unless changed by law on the second Monday of May, until June 30 when
the Senators-elect assume their office. There is no vacuum created because
at the time an outgoing Senators term ends, the term of a Senator-elect
begins.
The same principle holds true for the office of the President. A president17
elect does not assume office until noon of June 30 next following a
presidential election. An outgoing President does not cease to perform the
duties and responsibilities of a President merely because the people had
chosen his/her new successor. Until her term expires, an outgoing President
has the constitutional duty to discharge the powers and functions of a
President unless restricted by the Constitution.
In fine, the Senate is a continuing body as it continues to have a full or at
least majority membership even during elections until the assumption of
office of the Senators-elect. The Senate as an institution does not cease to
have a quorum to do business even during elections. It is to be noted that the
Senate is not in session
18
19
_______________
17 Constitution (1987), Art. VI, Sec. 8.
18 Id., Secs. 14 and 15 provides:
Section 14. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless
revoked by the elected President, within ninety days from his assumption or reassumption of
office.
Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the
end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary
appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public
service or endanger public safety.
19 The Office of a Senator may be vacant for causes such as death or permanent disability.
244
24
4
during an election until the opening of a new Congress for practical reasons.
This does not mean, however, that outgoing Senators cease to perform their
duties as Senators of the Republic during such elections. When the President
proclaims martial law or suspends the writ of habeas corpus, for example,
the Congress including the outgoing Senators are required to convene if not
in session within 24 hours in accordance with its rules without need of
call.
The Constitutional provision requiring publication of Senate rules is
contained in Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which reads:
The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective
Committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in
accordance with its duly published rules of
20
_______________
I agree with the Chief Justice that this Court must be wary of the farreaching consequences of a case law invalidating the Senate rules of
procedure for lack of republication. Our ruling in this petition will not only
affect the NBN-ZTE investigation, but all other Senate investigations
conducted under the 10th, 11th, 12th, and the present 14th Congress, for
which no republication of the rules has been done. These investigations have
been the basis of several bills and laws passed in the Senate and the House
of Representatives. Putting a doubt on the authority, effectivity and validity
of these proceedings is imprudent and unwise. This Court should really be
cautious in making a jurisprudential ruling that will unduly strangle
246
24
6