Doble confirms anew Arroyo-Garcillano conversation

[joem]

talaga itong si Ping media mileage lang ang habol nito kasi malapit na ang 2010. pasin ko ang senado ay lagi nalang imbestiga in aid of legislayson pero may batas bang nagawa.. ay naku!!! mag trabaho muna kayo para hindi naman masayang ang taxes namin.

[jeffrocks]

Do research who was lacson during marcos era in metrocom with col. abadilla and others,you stumbled him up to koratong-baleleng up to dazer-corveto up to bentain among others,and still up to now with US spionage scandal to whom two of his lieutenants were convicted here...its sad he belongs to the dark side...he can not even set foot here in the US.

[jeffrocks]

Bagong-Luma...Sablay si lacson sa balak nyang reopening ng garci case.Illegal ang pag wiretap."Its is a crime to wiretap, and it is a crime to use a wiretap,by talking about its contents."
Constitutions' Bill of Rights on privacy of communication,that an "illegal wiretap is inadmissable for any purpose in any proceeding."
We have "Anti Wiretapping Law"....tsk,tsk,tsk senador na ignorante...
yung U.S. spionage tape na lang ang buksan,legal pa,isa sya doon sa end-user...

[explorer]

Obstruction

Inquirer (EDITORIAL)
Last updated 01:58am (Mla time) 08/29/2007

If the “Hello, Garci” tapes had never surfaced, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would be firmly in charge, there would be, at best, a token opposition, and she wouldn’t be, today, the Richard Nixon of Philippine politics. But the tapes surfaced, and the country then, as now, must ask: Why does the chief victim of the wiretapping, the President, seem the least inclined to get to the bottom of the matter?

When the first (modified) versions of the tapes appeared, let no one forget that the Palace began by trying to muddle the issue with its own doctored version. Then it proceeded to wield its own interpretation of the law like a club. It threatened media with prosecution if they broadcast the tapes or published transcripts. It then issued executive issuances that were found defective by the courts, but which provided a shield for vulnerable Cabinet and military officials. It embarked on a divide-and-rule strategy by resisting both a truth commission and impeachment, until it had lobbied enough support to block both.

The President herself tried to grovel before the people. When that failed, she proceeded to do her best to intimidate those who wouldn’t be induced into cooperating with her. We should never overlook the reality, however, that throughout this time, until the present, she has acted as the primary defendant, instead of the foremost victim, and that is because whether she instigated the wiretapping or not, at the heart of the tapes is the revelation of a larger crime, the subversion of democracy.

The public instinctively knew then, and on the whole continues to believe, that these revelations stripped the President of legitimacy. While the public has also, on the whole, been willing to keep an open mind, all efforts to resolve this paramount question have failed. This failure has given the President an uneasy tenure.

But there is a difference between what we, the people, knew about the “Hello, Garci” issue in 2005, and what we know today. Someone has stepped forward to testify how it was done, by whom, and to whom. That someone is Vidal Doble Jr.

In 2005, he was the kind of fugitive over whom various camps conducted a tug-of-war that the intelligence establishment won. Today, he is acting as a whistle-blower. And now the public wants to see if his allegations can be debunked, or if they can withstand sustained scrutiny.

Instead of finally resolving matters, the Palace has reached into its old bag of tricks. It has dismissed the whistle-blower out of hand, threatened to recycle discredited executive issuances, proclaimed its own interpretation of the law as the only valid one, and tried to rally its old reliables in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Doble has finally done what he didn’t do in 2005, which is to give testimony on the vital questions of who were wiretapped, by whom and how, all of which suggest a possible answer, at long last, to the question of motive. Who was interested in getting the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to eavesdrop on such a wide-ranging group as a member of the Cabinet (Michael Defensor), a constitutional officer (Virgilio Garcillano) and members of the opposition? In 2005, the public could only wonder, but now we are inching closer to suspects, and the chief suspect seems to be a member of the President’s official family.

These are allegations that demand an investigation. We are told that Congress can investigate with one of two purposes in mind. It can investigate in order to exercise oversight over the executive branch, or it can investigate in aid of legislation. Every aspect of these allegations touches on these two justifications to hold a Senate hearing.

Former senator Francisco Tatad warns of a constitutional crisis if the Senate proceeds to investigate the case. The separation of powers, he says, means the Senate cannot investigate a president unless articles of impeachment have been approved by the House.

Tatad is being true to the spirited defense he made of then-embattled President Joseph Estrada. But we are not convinced by his reasoning, and we’re glad that the Senate committee on rules voted that hearing by the committee of the whole is in order.

To be sure, the Senate, at the end of the hearings, can only recommend action or amend existing legislation or pass new bills. It cannot remove the President from office without an impeachment. But it can, and should, ask: Why the President, who may have been victimized by her own people, coddles them. Why did the law prove impotent to prevent such a situation? And is it being used to protect the culprits?

[wowiesy]

Bagong-Luma...Sablay si lacson sa balak nyang reopening ng garci case.Illegal ang pag wiretap."Its is a crime to wiretap, and it is a crime to use a wiretap,by talking about its contents."
Constitutions' Bill of Rights on privacy of communication,that an "illegal wiretap is inadmissable for any purpose in any proceeding."
We have "Anti Wiretapping Law"....tsk,tsk,tsk senador na ignorante...
yung U.S. spionage tape na lang ang buksan,legal pa,isa sya doon sa end-user...

hmm kaya siguro sa privilege speech nya inilabas.. may immunity from suit ang senator / congressman sa anumang sasabihin nya during a privilege speech...

[jeffrocks]

Lacson accused of planning second coup...Manila Standard Today,issue 28 Aug.2007...senate will push through on its investigation sa garci case kung sino ang may utos sa illegal wiretapping na yan...yari, e di sino-sino pa...obvious ba?

[Zeus]

No TRO on ‘Hello Garci’ probe; SC grills petitioners



By Leila Salaverria
Inquirer
Last updated 04:59am (Mla time) 10/03/2007



MANILA, Philippines -- Supreme Court justices Tuesday invoked public interest in the reform of the electoral process as they grilled the lawyers of two retired justices who had sought to stop the renewed Senate inquiry into the “Hello Garci” wiretapping scandal.
After seven hours of oral arguments, the high court merely required the contending parties to submit their respective memoranda containing their positions within 15 days.
Earlier in the session, Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez said the retired Court of Appeals justices --Santiago Ranada and Oswaldo Agcaoili -- would do more for the country if they pushed for the Senate inquiry.
“I think your petitioners will be heroes of the day if, instead of asking the court to prohibit the Senate investigation, they insist that the Senate play the tapes because the contents involve the integrity of the electoral process,” Gutierrez told lawyers Mario Ongkiko and Manuel Lazaro.
The justices also questioned the standing of Ranada and Agcaoili to file the petition, saying the two would suffer no direct injury if the “Hello Garci” tapes were played and the hearings continued.
Gutierrez said the petitioners filed the suit as taxpayers, citizens and members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, but presented no claim that there was an illegal disbursement of funds for the inquiry, or how much was spent for it.
Agcaoili said they were invoking judicial supremacy, including the power of the court to allocate constitutional boundaries.
Gutierrez also said the petitioners did not talk to any of the parties whose conversations were recorded, and wondered why the retired justices were taking up the cudgels for them.
Petitioners not parties in tapes
The petitioners are not even parties in the recorded conversations, Justice Antonio Carpio pointed out.
But according to Ongkiko, the issue will affect the general public, whose right to privacy may be set aside when the Senate invokes its power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.
“In a personal sense, the petitioners would not suffer. But in the general sense, everybody would be affected who may be tapped in their private conversations,” he said.
Gutierrez also asked Ongkiko whether cleaning up the electoral process was more important than the right to privacy that would supposedly be violated if the tapes of the purported phone conversations between President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and then Election Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano during the 2004 presidential election were played during the Senate hearings.
“Should not compelling state interest ... override the right of a person to privacy? What’s more important, the cleansing of the election process to avoid fraud or the right to privacy?” she said.
Ongkiko said the issue was whether the Senate could violate a law to achieve a certain purpose.
“It all boils down to whether the end would justify the means,” he said.
Violation of privacy
Ranada and Agcaoili had asked the high court to stop the Senate inquiry into the “Hello Garci” tapes on the grounds that the use of the recordings would violate a person’s right to privacy.
They had also said the rules of procedure necessary for the conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation had not yet been published.
Ongkiko told the high court that another issue was whether a person’s right to privacy could be invaded by Congress’ power to conduct investigations.
He said a person’s right to privacy could not be sacrificed, and that the use of the tapped conversations would violate both the Constitution and the Anti-Wiretapping Law.
Lazaro said that in filing the petition, the retired justices did not want the lawmakers “to become lawbreakers.”
Concern for the law
Justice Ruben Reyes also asked whether playing the “Hello Garci” tapes at the Senate hearings would better serve the public interest.
Agcaoili said he and Ranada were not so much concerned about personalities as about the law. He said the mere playing of the tapes of recorded conversations was already a crime.
Justice Adolf Azcuna also asked whether the Senate could invoke public interest to play the tapes, and whether the senators could just turn state witnesses if they were charged with violating the Anti-Wiretapping Law.
Ongkiko said he thought that was possible.
Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago said the playing of the recordings in the media could mean that the contents had become public knowledge.
Ongkiko said it had to be established that it was the original tape that was played. He added: “I’m not prepared to admit that the enforcement of constitutional rights will be moot and academic just because the media overplayed its hand. And anybody who played the tape is liable for prosecution.”

But Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr. pointed out that the petitioners did not raise the constitutionality of the issue “at the earliest possible time,” or in June 2005, when Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye first played the tapes before the media.
Rules on Senate probes
On the question of whether the rules governing Senate inquiries in aid of legislation needed to be published, Chief Justice Reynato Puno said it was the Senate’s inherent power to conduct investigations, even without the publication of the rules.
Puno said the constitutional provision requiring the Senate to publish the rules did not limit its inherent power to conduct inquiries.
“It merely says if there are rules, it must be complied with. It does not say if there are no rules, there is no investigation,” he said.
But Lazaro said the Senate inquiry was “tainted with some doubts as to its validity” because of the non-publication of the rules.
He said publication of the rules was necessary so that those invited to the hearings could ensure that their rights would not be violated.
He added that without the rules, the conduct of the hearings was premature.
But Puno said the rules were intended to ensure orderliness, and that the rights of persons invited to hearings could be protected by the Constitution and the law.
On the other hand, Pimentel told the court that contrary to Ranada and Agcaoili’s claim, the Senate had actually caused the publication of the rules in major newspapers in 1992, 1995 and 2006.
He said no changes in the rules had been made since then.
Wireless communication
Carpio said the Anti-Wiretapping Law, which had not been amended since the 1960s, did not cover wireless communication involving cellular phones.
In wireless communication, the voice is transmitted through the airwaves, which are considered public, he said.
But Ongkiko said the phone conversations in the “Hello Garci” tapes could have been captured using a recorder, the use of which is prohibited under the law.
Justice Leonardo Quisumbing said the Senate inquiry might not be in aid of legislation, but might be for political destabilization.
In that case, he said, the proceedings would be political and the court could then not interfere.
Detective work
Justice Renato Corona commented that policemen and prosecutors at the Department of Justice could do a better job of uncovering the truth behind the “Hello Garci” scandal than the senators.
“Isn’t that detective work?” Corona asked of Pimentel, who argued that the Senate had aimed to find out the identity of the persons in the tapped conversations.
“Has that not yet been ferreted out by the House? Is that your job as senators?” Corona said. “There are people who can do better jobs at that, like the police and the DoJ prosecutors.”
Pimentel said there was no political agenda involved in the Senate inquiry into the issue.
“The hearings could resolve the implications of the Anti-Wiretapping Law on the elections and the conduct of military officers with regard to this law,” he said.
No legal standing
In a 15-minute speech interrupted by a power outage that lasted throughout the session, Pimentel said Ranada and Agcaoili did not have the legal standing to question the Senate hearings.
“Clearly, the petitioners are not the subjects [of the wiretapping],” he said.
He pointed out that only the subjects involved in the phone conversations -- “Ma’am” and Garcillano -- could cause the prosecution of those who had violated the Anti-Wiretapping Law.
“They have not complained, and it is safe to say that they have waived their right to privacy,” Pimentel said. With a report from Margaux C. Ortiz



Baka pwede iplay yung wiretap tape sa senate!