Constitutional Attack on the Anti-Wiretapping Law

Now that Mr. Garcillano has resurfaced, we are once again faced with the “anti-wiretapping law” problem. On the one hand,  the tapes are needed to uncover the truth about the 2004 Presidential elections and any improper intervention in the same by Mr. Garcillano.  On the other hand, his counsel has said in no uncertain terms that even references to the tape would be improper given that the tapes themselves arose from the commission of a criminal act.

Given the exceptional circumstances, I think it would be proper for the Supreme Court to declare that the application of the Anti-Wiretapping Law to this case would be unconstitutional.  Those exceptional circumstances relate to the Constitutional values that are at stake — the sanctity of the ballot, the right to suffrage, the inherent right of the people to determine their fate through elections and, I believe, the very integrity of our Constitutional system.  The Court must not sit idly by while these fundamental issues are kept from discussion and debate simply on the ground that Mr. Garcillano is entitled to privacy (as implemented by the Anti-Wiretapping Law).  Certainly, Congress could not have contemplated protecting the privacy of government officials who appear to have conspired to undermine basic Constitutional processes — election, investigation, and the search for the truth.  After all, justice is meaningless without truth.

And Mr. Garcillano’s reliance on the Anti-Wiretapping Law is intended to serve no purpose but to thwart any meaningful inquiry upon events that are so clearly within the public interest to openly discuss.  More importantly, the threat of criminal prosecution under that law jeopardizes our Constitutional system’s ability to correct itself.  There is more here than Mr. Garcillano’s right to be protected under the Anti-Wiretapping Law.

Unfortunately, the statute (R.A. 4200) stands firmly in Mr. Garcillano’s favor — a fact which he (and his counsel) will never let us forget.  And unless Congress repeals that law (which is unlikely because such a repeal requires the consent of the Chief Executive),  it is far easier for the courts to enforce it rather than to pursue an amorphous Constitutional claim.  It is, I fear, a weakness of our legal system — our stict adherence (and seeming reverence) to the formal exercise of power at the expense of ad-hoc appeals to Constitutional values.  Still, I hope the Supreme Court will be enlightened enough to face the difficult issues rather than hide under the cover of black letter law.

Let’s see what happens.