Home » Archives » 15. June 2005

Selected Case Law on the Anti-Wire Tapping Law

June 15, 2005

With all this discussion on the Anti-Wire Tapping Law, I decided to get some of the Supreme Court cases involving the statute. 

Gaanan v. IAC
G.R. No. L-69809, October 16, 1986

Gaanan listens on an extension phone to a conversation and the latter’s affidavit forms part of a charge for extortion.  The accused claims that the affidavit is inadmissible because Gaanan violated RA 4200. 

The Supreme Court ruled that RA4200 could have applied since the conversation was private “in the sense that the words uttered were made between one person and another as distinguished from words between a speaker and a public.”  But since an extension phone is not one of the wire tapping devices contemplated by the law, its use in this case does not violate RA 4200.

Ramirez v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995

Ramirez files a civil suit for damages against Garcia in relation to a confrontation which occured in the latter’s office.  Ramirez produced verbatim transcript of the conversation as part of her evidence.   The transcript was made based on a tape recording of the conversation made by Ramirez.  Ramirez is charged with violating RA 4200. 

She defends by saying that RA4200 only applies to persons other than the participants to the conversation.  The court disagrees, holding that the law equally applies to all persons who make secret recordings of private conversations. (more…)

Posted by disini at 10:20 am | permalink | comments[3]

Exercise your Constitutional Rights and Distribute the Tape

I’m still amazed that the local Internet community has not seen it fit to distribute Atty. Sammy Ong’s infamous tape at all.  So far, only the PCIJ bloggers have risen to the occasion by posting it here. It must be a resource issue. At more than 160 megabytes, hosting the tapes on-line means using up one’s monthly bandwidth in a day. 

I understand traditional media outlets have succumbed to pressure from the government and have resigned themselves to discussing the existence of the tape without giving the public the benefit of hearing its contents first-hand.

In this case, the government pressure has taken the form of a threat of prosecution emanating from the Justice Secretary himself. The charge? A violation of the Anti Wire Tapping Law (R.A. 4200) which prohibits not only the unauthorized taping of private conversations, but also: (a) the possession of such tapes with the knowledge of their nature as illegal wiretaps; (b) the replaying of the tapes to any person; and (c) to communicate the contents thereof either verbally or in writing, such as the provision of transcripts.  The potential jail term, if convicted, ranges from six months to six years.

Additional pressure has come to bear from no less than the National Telecommunications Commission which has threatened to cancel TV and radio network licenses if they “use their facilities to broadcast or telecast false information or willful false representation.”The NTC reasons that the unauthenticated tape constitutes false information.

Under the circumstances of this case and given the issues involved, I believe the proposed prosecution by the Justice Department and the threatened action by the NTC against media outlets and all other persons engaged in the distribution of the tape would be unconstitutional.  These acts of the government are, in my view, violations of our basic freedoms as citizens of this Republic. (more…)

Posted by disini at 9:12 am | permalink | comments[3]