Alan F. Paguia
Former Professor of Law
Ateneo Law School
University of Batangas
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
alanpaguia@yahoo.com
July 20, 2011
In the presidential elections of 2004, did Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) cheat and win over Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) by more than ONE MILLION (1,000,000) votes, with the connivance of then Commission on Elections (Comelec) Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano per the recorded or taped telephone conversation between GMA and Garcillano?
It is respectfully submitted the answer is YES.
MATERIAL FACTS
1. On June 8, 2005, Rep. Francis Escudero delivered a privilege speech before the House of Representatives citing recorded telephone conversations between respondent Garcillano and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, wherein the two (2) communicants talked about and agreed to ensure the electoral victory of Mrs. Arroyo by at least one million (1,000,000) votes over her closest rival, Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ).
2. On June 27, 2005, the recorded telephone conversations were publicly admitted and apologized for by Mrs. Arroyo in a speech aired over national radio and television. On the same date, a complaint for impeachment against Mrs. Arroyo was filed with the House of Representatives by Atty. Oliver O. Lozano.
3. On June 28, 2005, Atty. Lozano filed with the House of Representatives his Supplemental Complaint for Impeachment versus Mrs. Arroyo. Congressional records show Atty. Lozano’s complaint and supplemental complaint were endorsed by Rep. Rodante D. Marcoleta by way of an undated one-page Resolution of Endorsement, and another one-page verification of his endorsement subscribed and sworn to on June 29, 2005.
4. On June 30, 2005, the joint committee hearing of the House of Representatives (Committees on Public Information, on Public Order and Safety, on National Defense and Security, on Information Communications Technology, and on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms) officially played the compact disc (CD) of Alan F. Paguia which contained the recording of the aforementioned telephone conversations between Garcillano and Mrs. Arroyo.
5. On July 4, 2005, Paguia received a subpoena duces tecum, dated June 30, 2005, and a letter of invitation from the Committee on Public Information of the House of Representatives, dated July 4, 2004, which required him to testify and provide inputs to the joint committee hearings.
6. On July 18, 2005, Mrs. Arroyo duly filed her verified 13-page ANSWER EX ABUNDANTE AD CAUTELAM with the House of Representatives, with the following prayer for specific remedies:
“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Complaint for Impeachment dated 27 June 2005 and the Supplemental Complaint for Impeachment dated 28 June 2005 filed by Atty. Oliver O. Lozano, and endorsed by Rep. Rodante D. Marcoleta of the Alagad Party List in his Resolution of Endorsement dated 29 June 2005, be dismissed.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.”
7. The recorded voice of respondent Garcillano was positively identified: (a) by Rep. Jun Macarambon during the official House proceedings where he admitted having had telephone conversations during the same material period with respondent Garcillano whom he referred to several times as “Commissioner Garci;” and (b) by respondent Mrs. Arroyo herself who referred to Commissioner Garcillano as “Garci” in the taped conversation.
8. The recorded voice of respondent Mrs. Arroyo and her recorded conversation with respondent Garcillano was subsequently admitted by her in certain public statements.
9. The voices of both GMA and Garcillano are matters of public knowledge.
10. The voice of Garcillano is personally known to his former co-Commissioners in the Comelec. It is within the mandatory quasi-judicial or judicial notice of the Commission.
Sole Issue
11. WHETHER THE COMELEC, ON THE BASES OF THE RECORDED CONVERSATIONS AND PUBLIC STATEMENTS, SHOULD INVESTIGATE MRS. ARROYO AND GARCILLANO FOR ELECTION FRAUDS, OFFENSES AND MALPRACTICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS DUTY UNDER SECTION 2, ARTICLE IX-C OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION?
It is respectfully submitted the answer is YES.
ARGUMENTS
12. When GMA and Garcillano came to an agreement and decided to ensure the electoral victory of Mrs. Arroyo by at least one million (1,000,000) votes over her closest rival presidential candidate, they conspired by misrepresenting the final result of the elections in her favor.
13. Mrs. Arroyo has publicly admitted the existence of the issue of the voice recordings.
14. She has officially admitted the public deserves an explanation from her.
15. She has admitted having telephone conversations during the election canvassing process with Garcillano whom she referred to in the recorded conversations as “Garci.”
16. Mrs. Arroyo has not denied it was her voice which was recorded conversing with Garcillano in the taped conversations in spite of so much opportunity to do so.
17. Her defense - to the effect that it was not her intent to influence the outcome of the election – is immaterial. Election offenses are covered by special laws which are mala prohibita. It is elementary in law that in mala prohibita offenses, intent is not an element.
18. Mrs. Arroyo has publicly admitted having committed the wrongful act of making a telephone call to Garcillano and discussing with him the protection of her votes and ensuring her margin by at least one million (1,000,000) votes over FPJ. She characterized her wrongful act as “a lapse in judgment” and publicly apologized as follows:
“Nagagambala ako. Maliwanag na may kakulangan sa wastong pagpapasya ang nangyaring pagtawag sa telepono. Pinagsisisihan ko ito ng lubos. Pinananagutan ko nang lubusan ang aking mga ginawa at humihingi ako ng tawad sa inyo, sa lahat ng mga butihing mamamayan na nabawasan ng tiwala dahil sa mga pangyayaring ito. …”
19. The verified Answer in the complaint for impeachment against her was signed jointly by Mrs. Arroyo and her legal counsel, Atty. Pedro Ferrer. In other words, she had:
(a) publicly joined issues with Atty. Lozano’s complaint/supplemental complaint; and
(b) voluntarily submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives.
She has thereby waived any legal immunity from investigation; and is further estopped from invoking any such immunity.
20. The playing of the recorded telephone conversation between GMA and Garcillano, in Congress constitutes an official act of the legislature, which is within the mandatory quasi-judicial notice of the Comelec.
21. The public interest over the subject recorded telephone conversations necessarily prevails over any private interest.
Complaint filed on March 6, 2007
22. On March 5, 2007, then Comelec Commissioner Resurreccion Borra stated in a nationally televised interview that the Comelec has taken no action on the “Hello, Garci” controversy for the simple reason that no one has filed a corresponding complaint before the Commission.
23. On March 6, 2007, Paguia filed with the Comelec/Law Department, his Complaint-Affidavit bearing the same date, versus Garcillano and Mrs. Arroyo, praying for the Comelec to investigate the respondents in accordance with its duty under Section 2, Article IX-C of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, and Rule 34, Comelec Rules of Procedure.
The original complaint was duly accompanied by supporting evidence, namely:
LIST OF EXHIBITS
A - Rep. Francis Escudero’s privilege speech, dated June 8, 2005
B - GMA’s "I am sorry" speech, dated June 27, 2005
C - Atty. Lozano’s complaint, dated June 27, 2005
D - Supplemental Complaint, dated June 28, 2005
E - Resolution of Endorsement, undated
F - Verification of Endorsement, dated June 29, 2005
G - "Hello, Garci" Compact Disc (CD), 36-minute recording
H - Subpoena duces tecum, dated June 30, 2005
I - Letter of Invitation, dated July 4, 2005
J - GMA's “Answer ex abundante ad cautelam”, dated July 18, 2005
Epilogue
24. From March 6, 2007 up to this writing, or a period of more than FOUR (4) YEARS, the Comelec and its commissioners appear to have chosen to SIT and TAKE NO ACTION on the Complaint-Affidavit. Since the complaint has not been dismissed, it follows the controversy remains LEGALLY ALIVE.
25. How much more time will the Comelec take until it performs its constitutional duty to investigate Garcillano and Mrs. Arroyo?
The sovereign Filipino people are waiting.
