AFTER the controversial “Hello, Garci” tapes of supposed wiretapped phone conversations between Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and then election commissioner Virgilio Garcillano that surfaced in 2005, now comes another apparent case of electronic eavesdropping that has been made public on the popular video-sharing website, YouTube.

The subject of the almost three-and-a-half-minute YouTube video — actually an audio clip accompanied by a simple animation depicting two pigs conversing with each other — are mobile phone conversations between the two whistleblowers in the Senate’s investigation of the aborted national broadband network (NBN) deal — Jose ‘Joey’ de Venecia III and Rodolfo Noel ‘Jun’ Lozada. It was posted three days ago by an anonymous user going by the alias “tusongbaboy.” (Read the transcript below.)

De Venecia and Lozada have already acknowledged that the voices heard in the audio clip are theirs, both saying that they were illegally wiretapped. This corroborates what the two earlier testified in the Senate hearings about the claim made by resigned Commission on Elections chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr. that he had in his possession a CD of their wiretapped conversations.

In his initial Senate testimony on February 8, Lozada narrated how Abalos berated and threatened him over the phone on January 18, 2007, reminding him of his close ties with military intelligence agents and that he had a CD copy of his conversations with de Venecia.

Tumawag po si Chairman Abalos sa akin, sabi niya: ‘Jun, alam ba ni Neri ang ginagawa n’yo?’ Opo, Chair. ‘Alam ba ni Neri ang ginagawa mo?’ Opo, Chair. ‘Di ba alam mo namang malapit ako sa militar?’ Opo, Chair. ‘Di ba malapit naman ako sa intelligence?’ Opo, Chair. Alam ko po malapit siya sa MIG (Military Intelligence Group) 17, ‘yung mga nandoon sa wiretapping.

Tapos pinagmumura niya po ako. Lahat ng klase ng mura. Kumota (quota) po ako noong gabing yun. Sabi niya ‘yung CD ninyo nina Joey, nandito sa akin lahat. Mga hayop kayo! Ipagsasampal ko sa inyo lahat ‘to! Ako pa tinalo ninyo,’

The first time he appeared before senators last year, de Venecia also mentioned a similar case of cellphone bugging he attributed to a “senior powerful person and head of a Constitutional Commission” who was pushing for a $130-million “overprice” for the NBN project in favor of the Chinese firm, ZTE Corporation. The son of former House Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr., whose company Amsterdam Holdings Inc. also submitted a proposal to build a government broadband network, later named Abalos as the official he had referred to.

In the statement he read under oath, de Venecia said:

Sickened with what the ZTE proposal embodied, I informed my partners through telephone about my objections against and refusal to partner up with ZTE. Shortly after these conversations, I received a furious and enraged call from the senior powerful person, who was fuming mad over the conversations I thought I had in private.

When I asked this powerful person how he got his information, he shouted that he had my cellphone bugged and threatened to give me and my father a transcript of my conversations with my partners. I calmly requested that I be given such a transcript because I know that wiretapping is illegal and I would happily stand by my convictions against the ZTE proposal before my father. I never did receive the transcripts.

Though he denounced the wiretapping, de Venecia said the only reason why he is not yet filing a case against Abalos is because of the numerous cases he has already filed against the former poll chief.

He, however, confirmed the authenticity of the conversation with Lozada about the supposed $130-million kickback of Abalos, saying it happened two days after his return from Shenzhen last December 27. This was the trip that he said he reluctantly took upon the insistence of Abalos to meet with ZTE officials in China.

But he said the part about the Chinese embassy could have been tampered. “Because it’s totally different from the discussion we were having. (It’s) out of context. We were talking about the commission of Abalos and here comes another topic about the Chinese embassy. So I felt this has been slightly edited.”

De Venecia did not deny though that such a conversation happened. He said the discussion came up after he met the Chinese commercial councilor who intimated to him the embassy’s intention to acquire new land. “That’s what their problem was, so I mentioned it to Jun (Lozada).”

A private investigator the PCIJ consulted is positive that the audio clip was a product of wiretapping, but could have possibly been recorded from various conversations and periods, and then stitched to form one “seamless” dialogue. He also said that the wiretap could have been the handiwork of the “usual suspects” — MIG 17, the Philippine National Police’s Communication and Electronics (Commel) Service or Police Anti-Crime Emergency Response (PACER), or the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC).

“Most, if not all, equipment manufacturers,” he said, “only sell to the government or law enforcement agencies.” But he also did not discount the possibility that hired hacks or private contractors could be involved as it’s not difficult to customize commercially available bugging equipment.

The immediate reaction from Malacañang, particularly from Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, was that this was again a setup conjured by de Venecia and Lozada. But it strains the imagination to think that anyone would want to be willingly wiretapped and their private conversations exposed in public. It appears that the audio clip was intended more to damage Lozada and de Venecia’s credibility, especially as they were recorded discussing the kickbacks in the NBN deal, the exchange peppered with profanities even more casting them in a bad light. Only it has turned out to be yet another miscalculated move.

First, the audio clip is proof-positive, as Lozada’s lawyer Edwin Lacierda pointed out, that the claim of wiretapping is not just a work of fiction. Second, evidence of Abalos’s $130-million commission is written in half of the conversation with references to “Ben,” “Chair” and “gatekeeper of the votes,” confirming what de Venecia and Lozada already testified at the Senate NBN inquiry. The conversation, the first half at least, serves only to corroborate what Lozada testified about the orders he got from Romulo Neri, then National Economic and Development Authority director-general who took him as project consultant, to reconcile the proposals of Abalos and de Venecia; and the $130-million Abalos wanted protected, an amount that de Venecia found unacceptable.

But the more alarming issue in all this was articulated by de Venecia himself. “What I want to tell the people, even our bankers, our businessmen, our stockbrokers, is that there’s nothing secret in the Philippines. That the government can listen in on you when they want to,” he decried. And that, he said, is “not a democracy.”

Remarkably, the last seven years under Arroyo has ushered in the decline of democratic institutions. Political analysts like Dr. Paul Hutchcroft say the further weakening of Philippine democracy has been evident in the Commission on Elections and other important political institutions like the “House of Representatives (currently subordinated to the Palace even more thoroughly than usual); the judiciary (with the Supreme Court an important and encouraging exception); the Office of the Ombudsman (now headed by the president’s former chief legal counsel); and the military (recall the use of military intelligence for electoral purposes).”

Arroyo’s use of the military’s intelligence agency for clearly partisan political purposes, no longer for anti-crime or anti-terrorist campaigns, rivals only the record of Marcos under martial law. As the Gloriagate scandal revealed, it was the Military Intelligence Group (MIG) 21, the signal intelligence unit of the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP), that conducted the illegal wiretap of Garcillano’s cellphone. The bugging was done by intelligence agents upon orders of their superiors to monitor Garcillano’s movements as he was under suspicion of favoring the opposition during the 2004 elections. (see “The Tangled Tale of the Tapes“)

Since Arroyo came to power, she has turned ISAFP into a sniffing dog against her enemies in the political opposition, military rebels, and former and current communists. The ISAFP, in fact, was Arroyo’s favorite military agency, whose officers could go straight to her and the First Gentleman, bypassing the chain of command. (see “The Unmaking of the President“)

Though it has never been talked about openly, illegal wiretapping has been part of the toolkit of military intelligence for decades. Unauthorized bugging operations like those in the case of the “Hello, Garci” tapes and recently conducted on de Venecia and Lozada speak of the abuses that result from the routine practice that have largely disregarded legal norms. Yet in all these sordid affairs, the ISAFP has never admitted engaging in wiretapping, much more to having the capacity to tap mobile phones.

But the same private investigator said it’s easier to do intercepts now with the proliferation and use of digital technology. And it is not limited to voice alone as today’s electronic eavesdropping devices have the capability to listen in on SMS (short message service) or text messages — recall what Lozada narrated when he was being driven around by unidentified men who took him upon his arrival at the airport — and electronic mails.

“The loss of privacy in terms of communication data and location ID is the price Flipinos have to pay, especially with the advancements in communication technology,” he said, adding that laws are no guarantee against infringements on the citizens’ right to be left alone, though electronic counter-measures as debugging, encryption, scrambling and other basic discrete practices might be able to minimize the risks.

Below is the transcript of the phone conversation between Lozada and de Venecia as posted on YouTube:

JDV: Hey Jun.

JL: Hey Joey.

JDV: Jun, can you hear me?

JL: Yeah. Go ahead.

JDV: Yeah, wait, wait a second. Uh…ang formula ko doon is, uhm, kuha ako ng points doon sa…ah, doon sa 130.

JL: Uh-huh, u-huh…

JDV: Di ba? Kasi saan ko pa kukunin, di ba? (laughs) Puta mga gago…

JL: True.

JDV: Kaya lang pare, we need to get some…well, at least from…something from Ben, di ba?

JL: Yeah, from both sides, puta (laughs)

JDV: Ito nga si Ben, pare…(this happened, the thing aah)…because he is the gatekeeper of the votes, puta eh.

JL: (laughs)

JDV: I can understand but not that amount.

JL: Oh yeah, that’s too big, man. That’s too big. Yeah, yeah.

JDV: Pare, let’s develop a plan to talk to him.

JL: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So…

JDV: …And you know what he told me, between you and I, when we’re in Hong Kong, in Shenzhen … don’t quote me ah kasi marami akong…Tinanong ko, ‘Bakit ba ang laki-laki, singkwenta? Sabi nya, ‘Marami akong kailangang bigyan, pati yung NEDA. He said the word NEDA ha.

JL: (laughs)

JDV: Putangina…for your information, pare

JL: (laughs) I would understand that talaga. I’d like to look at…

JDV: Wait, maybe you could quote me and say, ‘Yun sabi ni Joey, meron daw, sinabi mo raw sa kanya may NEDA raw,’ di ba?

JL: (laughs)

JDV: He told me, pare, you know (laughs)

JL: Sige, sige, sige…

JDV: Putangina, kaya lang baka magwala na naman yun. (laughs)

JL: For some reason I have this chemistry with him…Sabi ko, Chair…In fact, sabi niya ‘Jun, ikaw na mag-referee bukas ha.’ Sabi niya, ‘I want you to be there. Ikaw na mag-referee. Ikaw na magsabi kung papaano.’ Sige po, Sir, ako na mag-aano diyan…(laughs)

JDV: Well, anyway, so that’s where I’m looking at right now to get you…and then think of a strategy for Ben and if you need me to back you up, I’ll be there.

JL: Hey, Joey. Regarding this Chinese Embassy thing, I think I’ve struck, ah, a motherlode noh? I’ll put them on Roxas Boulevard, putangina

JDV: Yeah…on the reclamation?

JL: No, putangina…that’s not prime…we’ll put them in the CCP Complex.

JDV: Yup, got it.

JL: Putangina…yeah, wala…I think I can swing that…goddamn dinner.

JDV: Isn’t that owned by the Central Bank?

JL: Yeah

JDV: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

JL: Can you imagine? Putangina, same stature as the American Embassy, better pa, di ba?

JDV: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

JL: The Japanese embassy is in Roxas Boulevard…the American embassy is there…so puta, meaning, just right that we put the Chinese embassy right in the midst of it all, di ba?

JDV: Yes, yes, of course…they’re up there…that’s perfect.

JL: Di ba? Tapos, (may turn-down pa ako diyan, ah)…Mention my name. He knows me well ‘no.

JDV: Yeah. Gaano kalaki pare?

JL: Putangina, as much as 15 hectares, man. (laughs)

JDV: Putangina, dapat siguro kumuha rin tayo roon. Kaya lang, we need Ben’s finances…

JL: No, no, no, putangina…I cannot just tell you all the things that I’ve been asked to do but, man, that one I think I can say for myself, you know?

JDV: Okay, all right, good. Okay, I’ll talk to the…

JL: Talk to him right away, talk to him right away. Okay.

JDV: Okay.

52 Responses to Yet another alarming case of wiretapping



February 23rd, 2008 at 8:55 pm


I am confused so I asked first. How come when the so-called “enemy of GMA” undertake wiretapping that resulted in the “Garci Tapes” the spin is that her election to office was fraudulent and the wiretapping aspect has been totally left out, but when the Military undertake the wiretapping on Lozada and his cohorts, we heard all invocation of constitutional protection against invasion of privacy? Lozada and his cohorts were talking about government deals – and therefore the public has the right to know about these deals.



February 23rd, 2008 at 9:12 pm

fcking nixonian.



February 23rd, 2008 at 9:33 pm

please delete my last post above.

I am confused so I asked first. How come when the so-called “enemy of GMA”; undertake wiretapping that resulted in the “Garci Tapes”; the spin is that her election to office was fraudulent and the wiretapping aspect has been totally left out, but when the Military undertake the wiretapping on Lozada and his cohorts, we heard all invocation of constitutional protection against invasion of privacy? Lozada and his cohorts were talking about government deals – and therefore the public has the right to know about these deals.


i don’t think it was the “enemy of GMA” who undertook the wiretapping of GMA and GARCI, but ISAFP.

And it was not Arroyo who the ISAFP spies were monitoring, but master operator Mr. Garcillano.

Nadamay lang si Arroyo dahil tinawagan niya si Garci.

Why did some in the administration higher-ups eavesdropped on garci’s phoneline? because they knew he’s up to no good and they didn’t trust him, so they want to keep an eye on Garci just in case namamangka si Garci sa dalawang ilog, o magsumbong siya sa kampo ni FPJ. Sigurista ang mga taga-administration, I suppose.

here, read this:

here’s another example. you familiar with the referee tim donaghy’s NBA betting scandal. nahuli siya nung tinawagan niya ang mob re point shaving in an NBA game. problem for him was, the FBI has been monitoring the phones of these mafia types. nadamay siya. doon siya nahuli. same thing with GMA.



February 23rd, 2008 at 9:40 pm

paki delete yung post ko sa 9:31pm.



February 23rd, 2008 at 9:41 pm


so where’s the beef? nobody said about the ‘put….inang one million lead’ in votes in this case.

in fact, if I were JL and JDV3, I’ll exhort all and sundry to include those that are still not in circulation, and have them recorded in Senate minutes where applicable (to the ongoing ZTE/NBN scandal).

that way, they help lay the atmosphere of openness so everybody could have the chance to finally listen to Hello Garci CD tapes in its entirety.



February 23rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm

I will repost my question again because I am still confused:

How come when eavesdropping were made on government officials and regardless of who made the eavesdropping we do not hear someone crying that it was illegal because it was wiretapping.

But we hear someone cry illegal wiretapping when it was Lozada and his cohorts who were wiretapped?

Please don’t be mad because I am really puzzled on this one.



February 23rd, 2008 at 11:04 pm

” Dr. Paul Hutchcroft say the further weakening of Philippine democracy has been evident in the Commission on Elections and other important political institutions like the “House of Representatives (currently subordinated to the Palace even more thoroughly than usual); the judiciary (with the Supreme Court an important and encouraging exception”.

I do not know the nationality of Dr. Hutchcroft but the name suggests that he is not a Filipino and he is not entirely correct when he said that the the Supreme Court, among the three branches, has an encouraging exception as to the perception of having contributed to the weakening of democracy in the country.

The Chief Justice got almost impeached for diversion of employees’ welfare funds but hid under that doctrainal coattail that impeachement should be made only once a year and therefore one’s previous impeachement or possible wrongdoing was a shield for another yet wrongdoing.

The Chief Justice could have improved democracy by making it work for the advantage of our civil institutions by resigning or by submitting himself to the process and defend his diversion of funds before the impeaching body rather than coyely invoked the doctraine of “one-year” limitation knowing that if he underwent the process, his claim to probity and good judgment was a pure fiction and a fable.

Or Dr. Hutchcroft should have read my book, “Termites from Within”. I’ll give it to him free if he wants it.



February 24th, 2008 at 12:51 am

JCC, there was a government whitewash that is why no one is crying about illegal wiretapping. They actually got to Vidal Doble, the former ISAFP agent who recorded the Hello Garci wiretapping. He was “rescued” from the San Carlos seminary and brought to Camp Aguinaldo. It was there he learned that his family had been kidnapped and detained in a basement room. This was done to silence his testimony.

Check this out:
(I think the interviewer is Clavio from GMA 7)

For a news commentary on this issue, go to:

It’s True GMA is EVIL!



February 24th, 2008 at 1:51 am

FreeWheel, JohnMarshan;

Alecks said we can disagree but we should remain respectful.

Anyway I have already figured out the answer to my query and you need not answer it.

We are only interested in the product of what was wiretapped. If what was gathered in the illegal wiretap will support our own bias, we hail the same as the triumph of democracy, if the result of the wiretap is otherwise it is very convenient for us to invoke constitutional transgression of our most sacred rights to privacy.

I agree with Senator Miriam Santiago that “marami sa atin ang nag-dudunong-dunongan”.


Ambuot Saimo

February 24th, 2008 at 3:33 am

I think you are also seeing gray (as you always referring to Pinoys) in the Lozada & Gloria wiretaps tapes. Obviously, they are similar because both are products of illegal wiretaps and if presented in court as evidence, both are ordinarily will not be admitted as substantive evidence because they are “products of a poisonous tree”. If ever, they can be admitted but for impeachment purposes only.

However, (as I presume you know because you have 19 years of trial experience), there is a rule in evidence known as “residual exceptions” a.k.a. catchall provision which essentially states that even illegally obtained evidence can be admitted if its introduction will reasonably help or aid the trier of facts than without it as long as its probative value outweighs unfair prejudice e.g. by reason of important policy considerations, national security or interests.

Applying the above rule to this case, the difference is that Lozada tapes cannot be admitted because its prejudicial to Mr. Lozada because he is just lowly civil service employee talking to a private person in an animated conversation and therefore has that reasonable expectation of privacy while the Arroyo tapes can be admitted because she is a President of the Philippines (albeit “de jure”) and talking to a Comelec Commissioner not discussing about the weather but to rig an election, an important democratic process. So, assumimg arguendo that it’s introduction is prejudicial to Arroyo, it can be legally admitted because national interest outweighs private prejudices. I hope you now see black anf white.

And, please, huwag mong ibenta sa amin ‘yang si “Merriam” mo. Sinubukan nang ibenta ‘yan noon pero di kumita. I think, we already know her more than you do.


Ambuot Saimo

February 24th, 2008 at 4:37 am

Siyanga pala.. Sabi ni Ibid, (my favorite writer) kung mahirap ang nagdudunong-dunongan mas mahirap daw ang nagbubulag-bulagan.



February 24th, 2008 at 5:50 am

in garci tapes…nabuking (di nadamay) si arroyo kase tinawagan niya si Garci…



February 24th, 2008 at 5:55 am

ei alecks…please delete my post above…thanks.



February 24th, 2008 at 6:26 am

talagang buking si arroyo sa garci tapes. lozada and joey wiretapped conversation on you tube…di lang nabuking…nandamay pa…hehehe



February 24th, 2008 at 6:47 am

Layo ng argumento mo day.. parang argumentong bading.

Senator Santiago is right again, or my high school teacher who used to say that that “little learning is a dangerous thing” is right.

The “catch-all provisions” and the “product of poisonous tree” and “highly prejudicial evidence doctrine” are three separate and distinct areas of Rule of Evidence and quite frankly are diametrically oppose to each other. One tried to mix and match the doctrines and come up with the most ridiculous doctrines in the Rule of Evidence.

Under the catch-all doctrine, a judge will allow the introduction of otherwise irrelevant and immaterial evidence if the introduction will somehow help the trier of facts in arriving a reasoned decision of the issue before the court. This is totally judge-dependent discretion. This is hardly the rule. Judges are normally guided by the materiality and relevancy standard in the admission of evidence.

Illegally obtained evidence is not admissible because it is the product of a poisonous tree whether it is being offered against the King or a subject. So whether against GMA or Lozada, illegally obtained evidence are not supposed to be admissible. That it is admissible against GMA because she is the President but not against Lozada because the latter is a lowly paid public servant is pure hogwash.

The doctrine of undue prejudice simply states that “otherwise relevant evidence” though highly competent and reliable will not be admitted if the admission becomes highly prejudicial, will cause needless presentation of evidence, will confuse the jury/judge. Typical of this kind of evidence is the impermissibility of introducing the previous conviction for robbery of an accused who is being tried again for robbery for the second time. The very reason is that the judge might be looking at a previous conviction as a reason for convicting the accused for present robbery charge though he may not guilty of the second robbery and therefore the evidence is highly prejudicial.

I do not see the discussion of those rules relevant on the wiretapped evidence either against GMA or Lozada. If both evidence were the product of an illegal wiretap they are impermissible whether offered against GMA or Lozada.



February 24th, 2008 at 8:33 am


I have tried to be civil in my posts but somehow the atmosphere in this blog site is overheated with partisan passion and emotion indicative only of a wide divide among us Filipinos.

I shall take a temporary leave again until the time that the itch becomes irresistible again. Somehow I could say that your bloggers are not entirely loosers, only that the loosers regrettably far outnumber the sobers.

I have tried to communicate bilingualy under the impression that my foreign tongue could had been the mischief in miscommunication only to find out that our deep-seated bias had caused all communication failures.

Behind all the facade of strength that I have tried to portray in my posts, my heart weeps and bleeds that our nation is fractious and divided and we see no common point of agreement to achieve a lasting peace.

My only consolation is that somehow my brief interlude in the blog site has sparked some dynamic excitement among the bloggers. I missed Joselu and Bob Malit.

Alecks, I have a feeling that you are a gentleman and a true patriot… Wish you the very best.



February 24th, 2008 at 9:03 am

jcc, if i were arroyo, i would be very furious re the hello garci tapes leaking out. as president, i would have called for a public investigation on who wiretapped me and punish them.

pero bakit hindi interesado si arroyo na malaman kung sino ang nag-wiretap sa kanya?



February 24th, 2008 at 10:10 am

after hearing hello garci and reading reports that opposition members have been wiretapped too as part of the 2004 effort, i’ve been calling for an independent investigation on ISAPF’s role in the wiretapping case. but this administration refused to do so and wasn’t even remotely interested in finding out the perpetrators, which is kinda weird… i guess arroyo is not interested in finding out, eh?



February 24th, 2008 at 11:33 am

i think we should use the garci tapes as exhibit a that there is gov’t wiretapping and we need to go after those people who ordered these operations on gov’t officials and it’s critics.


Ambuot Saimo

February 24th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Here you go again trying to make black and white appear as gray by your “abogado-de campanilla” argument. Ang liwanag ng argumento pero pinalabo mo.

So, allow me to make it clearer. According to Ibid and at this time Supra, (two legal luminaries) the reason it’s called “residual exception” is because the evidence sought to be introduced cannot be admitted without violating the rules on evidence. And, by evidence it means all types of evidence-it does not matter whether its hearsay, “fruit of poisonous tree” or highly prejudicial as long as it will help the trier of fact. In short, even if they are separate and distinct areas of rules of evidence they are covered and included in the application of the rule on “residual exception”. That’s the reason why it’s called “catch-all”, Meaning- when everything else failed, you can try using this very unique rule of evidence.
One thing I agree though is that you are right, its admission is discretionary on the part of the judge. But you can try by first laying a very solid foundation e.g. that the wiretap though illegal, should be admitted into evidence because the content of the conversation is of national interest inasmuch as it’s between a sitting president and a Comelec Commissioner talking about rigging an election.

No, no no!!! Pls. don’t go. We will miss you like Joselu and Malit. But if you think you are a big frog in a small pond, it’s up to you.



February 24th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

pwede na palang i-play ang garci tapes sa media. here’s my advice to the media on how to approach the garci tapes


Alecks P. Pabico

February 24th, 2008 at 12:52 pm

As John Marzan has pointed out, it was the ISAFP that ordered the wiretapping of Virgilio Garcillano, an order that in turn could not have come from anywhere except from Malacañang. According to military and intelligence sources, the order to monitor the former poll commissioner was made because the latter was under suspicion of favoring the opposition during the 2004 elections.

In the span of three weeks between May and June 2004, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo called Garcillano 15 times. Was this an indication that she was not aware that the poll commissioner was being tapped?

During the House investigation on the “Hello, Garci” tapes, Garcillano admitted he was a victim of wiretapping, although he refused to admit that it was his voice in the recording.

But here remains the conundrum, at least for those who would rather give Arroyo the benefit of the doubt. If she was as much a victim of wiretapping as Garcillano was, why did she not raise hell about it — which was the logical thing to do, the way Jun Lozada and Joey de Venecia have done in their case? Why has she not ordered up to now an investigation so that the perpetrators would be punished?

The answer is quite obvious. The contents of the Garci recordings are so damning. And these are not only illustrated by utterances like “Will I still lead by one M(illion votes)?” and “yung dagdag, yung dagdag.” Arroyo’s conversations with Garcillano also involved consenting to have a Tipo-Tipo election officer abducted; expressing concern about the mismatch between election documents that padded her lead in Basilan; asking to be assured of the consistency of COCs and SOVs in Maguindanao and Sulu; and being assured by the poll commissioner that she would not lose by more than 40,000 votes in Cotabato as the matter had already been taken up with Atty. Lintang Bedol.

Arroyo’s silence is therefore understandable. Admitting to being wiretapped lends credence to the recordings. And she would not want to incriminate herself.



February 24th, 2008 at 2:22 pm

why were they eavesdropping on garci? because they know the guy is a criminal, a rogue operator in the COMELEC, who is up to no good. sure he was appointed by arroyo, but some of arroyo’s people were paranoid. and they are also sigurista. so they instructed ISAFP to monitor all of garci’s calls behind arroyo’s back.

you know the FBI monitors the mafia’s phone lines to check on their illegal activities, right? well ISAFP did the same thing to the rogue operator garci in 2004.

malas lang ni arroyo tinawagan niya yung tapped line ni garcillano.



February 24th, 2008 at 2:59 pm

johnmarzan: In this country, the fact that there is wiretapping, graft and corruption going on is a given. The government is just playing a game of smoke and mirrors. They want to pin down the whistleblowers and wiretappers. So what do they do? Go after the people who ordered the wiretapping, dig up some dirt on the whistleblowers. All in order to confuse the general public and obfuscate the real issues and revelations made by them.



February 24th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

In some Jurisdiction Unconstitutionally obtained evidence could be admitted as evidence as ruled by the Ontario Court of Appeal in these two recent cases.

One: a substantial amount of cocaine found in an accused SUV as a result of unreasonable search, the court concluded, but substantial enough that the Public Safety much be taken into consideration if these elicit drug found its way into the Market. Dangerous ruling, but even fundamental freedoms have limits.

Another case in the same jurisdiction: A firearm found in a boy’s knapsack can also be admitted, even as a result of a search after a reported sighting near the school, may have violated the boy’s right to Unreasonable search. He was not the suspect on the alert to all patrols, but within the vicinity.

Now for wiretapping, this post maybe monitored by the intelligence service, as all passengers images in our subways and buses and LRT, but they are all for National securities and Pubic Safety and can only be used as evidence upon application to the proper court.

I suggest the authorities would also investigate the source of all “these wiretapping” and make sure that those authorized to do them, follow the strictest guidelines for its intended lawful purposes, and those doing them illegally, well, that is another story in the land of anything goes and anything could go even the President..



February 24th, 2008 at 7:32 pm


I think two or more posts have clarified that ’twas the ISAF that wiretapped Garci (and not the opposition bloc), with GMA being dragged into the case because she called Garci to ask about the ongoing manipulation of the elections.

Point two. Some of your posts are quite perplexing (i.e urging people to remain respectful of your comment but you nonchalantly resort to name-calling because their opinions are opposed to yours.

Point three. You cite an alleged graft case involving a Supreme Court chief justice and sought his resignation “to improve democracy.” Shouldn’t GMA do the same thing likewise if we are to follow your train of thought?

Point four. I can spot quite a few logical fallacies in your thinking.

You fell head first for Miriam’s ad hominem ploy that attacked Lozada instead of the actual subject that is the ZTE mess.

Ignoratio elenchi and an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise after coming up with an irrelevant thesis that people are mere concerned the the product of the wiretaps and not the actual violation of a person’t right to privacy.

And let me see… judgmental language, argument from ignorance, petitio principii, plurium interrogationum, appeal to emotion, wishful thinking, and argumentum ex silentio.

Point five. Who was your English teacher in high school?



February 24th, 2008 at 8:32 pm


The majority of software and hardware equipment of telcos’ infrastructures here are imported from overseas such as the United States and the equipment has been rendered wire-tap friendly to aid law enforcement in its effort to conduct surveillance of digital telephone networks.

In the past fifteen years, the United States government has led a worldwide effort to limit individual privacy and enhance the capability of its police and intelligence services to eavesdrop on personal conversations.

This campaign had two strategies. The first is to promote laws that make it mandatory for all companies that develop digital telephone switches, cellular and satellite phones and all developing communication technologies to build in surveillance capabilities; the second is to seek limits on the development and dissemination of products, both in hardware and software, that provide encryption, a technique that allows people to scramble their communications and files to prevent others from reading them.

Law enforcement agencies have traditionally worked closely with telecommunications companies to formulate arrangements that would make phone systems “wiretap friendly.” These agreements range from allowing police physical access to telephone exchanges, to installing equipment to automate the interception. Because most telecommunications operators were either monopolies or operated by government telecommunications agencies, this process was generally hidden from public view.

Following deregulation and new entries into telecommunications in the United States in the early 1990s, law enforcement agencies, led by the FBI, began demanding that all current and future telecommunications systems be designed to ensure that they would be able to conduct wiretaps. After several years of lobbying, the United States Congress approved the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) in 1994. The act sets out legal requirements for telecommunications providers and equipment manufacturers on the surveillance capabilities that must be built into all telephone systems used in the United States. In 1999, at the request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an order was issued under CALEA requiring carriers to make available the physical location of the antenna tower that a mobile phone uses to connect at the beginning and end of a call.

More here



February 24th, 2008 at 8:34 pm

x x x illegally obtained evidence are not supposed to be admissible. That it is admissible against GMA because she is the President but not against Lozada because the latter is a lowly paid public servant is pure hogwash.

That was my previous post.

Courts due to police bungling, (police making an search without warrant) would allow admission of evidence if the search is an (1) incident to a lawful arrest, ( cocaine, in Naykika’s case), 2. reasonable belief in the mind of the arresting officer of the existence of a contraband ( gun in the knapsack, in Naykika’ case, and this is further limited by the “plain view doctrine” and “protective sweep doctrine: and the “stop and frisk doctrine”).

Courts do not classify these types of evidence as “fruits of poisonous tree” or “unconstitutionally gathered evidence”. If the court has made a prior determination that the evidence was the fruit of a poisoned tree, or unconstitutionally obtained, they are impermissible, period.

In regards to wiretapping a mob, here in the US police officers have to request for a judge approval to wiretap, otherwise the wiretap is impermissible.

Apparently both wiretaps on GMA and Lozada (if parallel laws are obtaining in the Philippines) were unconstitutionally gathered and therefore both are impermissible.

If one would like to develop a rule of evidence that because its concern public interest (“election fraud” ) and therefore the Garci tapes are admissible then the wiretap on Lozada could be argued similarly because it was about anomalous government deals.

But those points are hardly the subject of my original query. I said we do not raise a howl of protest that the Garci Tapes violated GMA or Garci’s fundamental rights to privacy but we raise that issue when it was Lozada and his cohorts who were wiretapped.

Apparently when the result of the illegal wiretap supported our bias (that GMA cheated), no constitutional privacy issue was raised, but when Lozada and his cohorts were wiretapped we cry to high heavens that our sacred right to privacy had been intruded.

Senator Santiago, tama po kayo, marami sa atin ang nagdudunong dunongan.



February 24th, 2008 at 8:44 pm

Do tell Miriam to read my previous post.


magandang magda

February 24th, 2008 at 8:58 pm

I don’t expect Jun Lozada to be a saint but I believe what he is saying. I think we should stop trying to expect only the ‘spotlesssly clean’ to have the right to speak out. Let us all accept that we are all messed up. If one of us decide to speak the truth, why can’t we just enlighten ourselves with that truth. If the messenger of that truth happen to be dirty himself, let that be the truth too. But let us not get trapped in our own dark cave waiting for an immaculate sinless messiah to come to us to bring us the truth that we are willing to believe.



February 24th, 2008 at 9:40 pm

JCC from GMA’s camp?


I think two or more posts have clarified that ’twas the ISAF that wiretapped Garci (and not the opposition bloc), with GMA being dragged into the case because she called Garci to ask about the ongoing manipulation of the elections.

Point two. Some of your posts are quite perplexing (i.e urging people to remain respectful of your comment but you nonchalantly resort to name-calling because their opinions are opposed to yours.

Point three. You cite an alleged graft case involving a Supreme Court chief justice and sought his resignation “to improve democracy.” Shouldn’t GMA do the same thing likewise if we are to follow your train of thought?

Point four. I can spot quite a few logical fallacies in your thinking.

You fell head first for Miriam’s ad hominem ploy that attacked Lozada instead of the actual subject that is the ZTE mess.

Ignoratio elenchi and an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise after coming up with an irrelevant thesis that people are mere concerned the the product of the wiretaps and not the actual violation of a person’t right to privacy.

And let me see… judgmental language, argument from ignorance, petitio principii, plurium interrogationum, appeal to emotion, wishful thinking, and argumentum ex silentio.

Point five. Who was your English teacher in high school?

This jcc thing is deaf and mute to reality.

I agree. I agree!

Nalulungkot ako para sa ating bayang mahal.

jcc, admit it, she’s evil! (to the bone.) ‘ hope you’re not one of her paid defenders.

this forum should be shared only by those people who have a heart…heart for this beloved country of ours.

Emotional na ang taong bayan, isa na ako doon!

God bless, PCIJ!



February 24th, 2008 at 11:27 pm


You were right. I should not have resorted to personal diatribes despite being hurled first with similar insults and diatribes from your camp.

Now you are talking about my english and apparently you have a superior english. I will not answer your peronal insult with similar insult but read first before you respond to my post.

Dr. Hutchroft argues that Executive and Lower house have contributed to the weakening of democracy but the Supreme Court is an exception.

The premise had been laid already that GMA contributed to the weakening of democratic process by failing to resign accoding to Dr. Hutchroft argument.

But I said he was not entirely correct because the Supreme Court Chief Justice when questioned about the diversion of employees judicial fund had skirted the issue by invoking the 1 year limitation, and therefore, the conclusion should be that he too or the SC just like GMA and Congress contributed to the weakening of our institution should apply.

Get it?



February 25th, 2008 at 1:16 am


When I quoted Miriam Santiago that “marami sa ating ang nagdudunong-dunongan” It was never meant for you. It was meant for people who called me “fucking” Nixonian, magaling na salesman ng Malacanang at nagbebenta kay Miriam or for some people in some posts who callled me “bayaran” or “bulag”, or a snipe about my being 19 years trial lawyer. (Minder, please visit some of the posts in the site and to find these out).

I have read your present and past posts and they were well-meaning and you have my respect.

Now someone called my attention to my grammar. I have no problem with the fact that some are gifted grammarian though english is not all about grammar, but idioms and prose too. I can live with the fact that I do not know my english that much, but atleast it is my grammar that i fractured not my common sense and logic.

The reason I wanted to quit posting in this site because if a garbage is thrown at me, I throw them back which should have not been done in the case in the first place.



February 25th, 2008 at 1:37 am

I am not arguing anymore as to who made the wiretap either in the case of GMA-Garci Tapes or Lozada. That’s why I reposted my query. Admittedly both were done by the military intelligence. So the issue now whether those wiretaps are admissible.

If one argues that the Garci Tapes are admissible because they are of “public interest” according to Ambout, then the Lozada tapes are also admissible because it is about anomalous government deals.

What is good for the gander is good for the goose.


PCIJ or its bloggers come to the rescue of Jun Lozada about the illegality of wiretapping citing that it was a transgression of our most sacred constitutional right to privacy.

But nobody comes to the rescue of GMA that the wiretap on her and Garci similary fall under the same category as the Lozada wiretap.

Is it becaue our bias that GMA cheated the election is proven by these wiretaps and therefore the constitutional objection is not present – but it is present in the case of Jun Lozada wiretap because we happened to pro Lozada?



February 25th, 2008 at 1:46 am

By the way, due to time constraint, I do not edit some of my posts to conform to grammar, spelling or to spot typo errors. If my posts contain errors, my apology to gifted grammarians.



February 25th, 2008 at 5:24 am

the govt bought these wiretapping equipments (millions of pesos) to help their operations in exterminating the abu-sayaf and other outlaws…as the title of this topic, “yet another alarming case of wiretapping”…whew!

and to our surprise…GMA was wiretapped (accidentally?), and Lozada…both make really a national issue…the other one was for cheating the elections and the latter for outwitting the Government officials…

siguro…di na tayo dapat magtaka kung bakit ang mga kano ay gusto nilang makialam sa pagsugpo sa mga terrorista…kasi nga…ginagawang personal phone yung pang wiretapping equipments nila…

about the issue raised kung admissible ba sa korte ito o hindi…admissible man o hindi…talagang di na patas ang korte…syempre gobyerno yan…anong laban nyo sa kanila…ipahuli sa pulis o sa militar?…kunsabagay pati nga yung 10 helicopters na US AID ng mga kano sa atin…ayun gamit na ng mga pribadong sector…e papaano?…ibenenta nila yung mga piyesa ng helicopter…kasi nga limang choppers ang dumating sa Pinas…tapos limang kahon na bawat kahon ay isang buong helicopter yun para sa parts replacements ng naunang lima…o di ba ang gagagaling gumawa ng pera…kaya daming nagsisibagsakang chopper in the past years di ba?…kawawa naman yung isa sa mga pasahero doon…kasi talagang naglilingkod siya sa tao…yung weatherman ng pagasa…tsk tsk tsk…

sa ngayon…di na dapat dalhin pa sa korte ang issue ng wiretapping…pinangunahan na nga tayo eh…di daw legal yun…pero kung tutuusin iyun ang katotohanan…na may naganap na dayaan sa eleksyon at may nagagaganap na korupsyon sa mga proyekto ng gobyerno…NATIN!

paano na yan…yung gusto nang magpaalam…mauna na hehehe.


Ambuot Saimo

February 25th, 2008 at 6:32 am

Gander & goose argument? Wow…! ang layo yata Pards.
Para mong sinabing ‘yong paslit na nagnakaw ng isang chocolate bar sa tindahan ay parusahan katulad ‘nong nagnakaw ng milyon-milyon sa bangko dahil pareho silabg magnanakaw. Malabo at malayo …. umisip ka ng iba. O baka naman nahililo ka na. Mag-tylenol 1000 mg ka muna.



February 25th, 2008 at 9:15 am


In Both cases that I cited, the Court of Appeal in a majority decision (2-1) agreed that the arresting officers violated the fundamental rights of the accused, but cited Section 1 of the Charter which I will post below:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

Rights and freedoms in Canada 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The court decided that between the accused rights to unreasonable search and the arresting officer discovery of a substantial evidence that are of great concern for Public Safety, the limits to the accused rights can be justified while absolving the officers of wrongdoings (unlawful arrests). I’m not sure if both defense appealed the rulings to the Supreme court, but lately, due to rise in crimes, the courts are quite comfortable of slanting their rulings in favour of the the crown in areas where they can have a chance of getting the same ruling from the SC. But only in cases of evidence in serious crimes and can be justified by the circumtances, meaning the discovery of evidence is not way off…



February 25th, 2008 at 9:02 pm


Confused again? Goose and gander argument is to the admissibility of the evidence but please do not confuse it to the imposition of penalty. Iyong maliiit na magnanakaw maliit dapat ang parusa, iyong malaking magnanakaw dapat malaki ang parusa.


Again you were right. But please consider that in the case of the cocaine and gun, the evidence are physical evidence. When it comes to wiretap evidence, (voice recording) here in the US, to be admissible, the wiretap should be pre-judged approved. It does not matter that the wiretap evidence that was gathered was about an assasination plot against the President. It is not admissible because it was illegal.

But as you said, courts have some way of skirting those issues to address compelling issues of the day, (rising criminalities, etc), but until then, we do not know whether illegal wiretaps should be permissible in courts if obtained illegaly.



February 26th, 2008 at 3:38 am

JCC, the Hello Garci wiretaps were not obtained illegaly. They were recorded by members of the MIG 21 (Military Intelligence Group) of ISAFP because the government wanted to monitor the conversations of certain people. So they are pre-judged approved but were illegally released. Does that make it non-admissible evidence? I don’t think so. Too bad PGMA wasn’t impeached because it was blocked by the House and key witnesses were “silenced”.



February 26th, 2008 at 3:46 am

Oh yes and aside from that, the NTC and DOJ also banned the Hello Garci recordings from being played by radio and TV stations before. Thankfully, the Supreme court has now lifted this restriction. Hurray Freedom of Speech!



February 26th, 2008 at 7:28 am


Pre-judged approved means that before you wiretap someone for suspicion of illegal activities you have to apply for an authority to wiretap before a judge. The judge will examine your request and if satisfied the order to wiretap is given. It is under this circumstances only that those wiretapped evidence can be admitted. It does not mean that because it was done by MIG 2 and ISAFP, the same has passed the judicial approval. I was out of the country for sometime and I do not know if “wireapping laws” in the Philippines has the same feature as in the U.S.

I am glad though that we are having this discussion calmly and intelligently.



February 26th, 2008 at 8:48 am


The SC resolved the issue on the alleged GMA-Garci tapes on “prior restraint” issue, not on “illegal wiretap issue”.

Please observed that the parties here are Ex Solgen
Frank Chavez on one hand and NTC and DOJ on the other hand.

The constitutionality of “illegal wiretap” cannot be validly passed upon by the Supreme Court because it is only GMA and GARCI who can validly raise that constitutional objection,and inasmuch as they were not parties in the Chavez petition, the SC cannot even entertain the issue even if it was raised.

Obviously GMA cannot be joined as a party because she is immune from this kind of suit while sitting as a President and the proper forum if ever, is Congress to try her for impeachment. It is blurred to me though as to the reason of the failed impeachment, as I said, I was out of the country.

If Garci is sued for election fraud, and the wiretap is used as evidence for that fraud, he could validly raise the the issue of illegal wiretap and the SC may agree to that proposition, the issues of “public interests”, notwithstanding.

But until then, we are not sure how the SC will react to such issue.

The battlefield of the GMA-GARCI tapes is not only confined in the judicial trenches but the entire political landscapes of the minds and hearts of the Filipino people.

While FPJ may have actually won the 2004 Presidential elections, the operatives behind GMA may have thought that perhaps robbing the “gullible and unintelligent electorate” of their right of suffrage may be excusable than having another movie star, very much green of “governance” and state stewarding, run a fractious nation.

This is the very reason why it has always been my thesis that we educate the electorate so they can discern which among our politicians has the “statesman/woman” calibre who can lead us from our present predicament.



February 26th, 2008 at 9:06 am


As I read my post I have noticed that my predicate verbs do not agree with my subjects so I will correct them and if I have left out some errors, my sincere apology:

“wiretapping laws” have the same feature, has is also correct though if we used “wiretapping laws” as a collective noun.

“state stewarding, runs (instead of run) a fractious nation.

politicians have xxx calibre.


i gotta little knowledge and its dangerous

February 26th, 2008 at 12:31 pm

haaay… here we go again.. politicians and publics figure pointing fingers at each other thus making the people of my beloved nation confused. (i am confused myself)

well, true, privacy of communication and correspondence is constitutionally protected and jurisprudentially upheld a number of times.

theoretically, the constutional exemptions to the so called “right to privacy” are lawful order of the court, when public safety so requires and as may be otherwise provided for by law. No where would we found “national interest” as an exception to such right. it is my humble assumption that the framers of the constitution deemed it proper that national interest should not be included since the state, with all its resources, may violate this constitutional guarantee then hark on the vague term “national interest”. vis-a-vis with “public safety”, which is considerably a narrower phrase than “national interest”, the state is justified in checking private communications thus giving birth to “confidential information” and military or police secrets.

to further safeguard the right, the exclusionary rule was enshrined making pieces of evidence obtained in violation of some constitutional rights specifically right to privacy, inadmissible as evidence in “any” proceeding.

as an analogy, a woman, married to a doctor, ransacked the clinic of his husband, got some love letters and wanted to present it in court. Evidence was inadmissible since it was obtained in violation of “right to privacy”. another is a man who taped the phone conversation of his wife to another man (read s.o.p.) and wanted to present the recordings in evidence. the court ruled: inadmissible, the husband should be prosecuted for violation of anti wire-tapping act.(read salcedo vs. ca case and zulueta vs. ca case)

the hello garci, the lozada-jdviii p.i. conversation, cannot be received in evidence in any court and in any proceeding. they may be relevant but would never be competent….

but who cares, nothing is incompetent in the eyes of the public and the ridicule of public opinion… if public opinion is an index in measuring a nation’s economy, this country would have been in the 1st world list in less than 3 years of gma’s presidency.

gma, garci, lozada, jdviii et. al would have their places in our history books.



February 26th, 2008 at 9:03 pm


Atleast nagkaruon din ako ng kakampi dito sa PCIJ websites.


i gotta little knowledge and its dangerous

February 27th, 2008 at 11:04 am

mmm. am not siding with anyone… am just airing my views… am after the truth though not on its “ideal” sense.. but on the “legal” sense.



February 27th, 2008 at 3:10 pm

being a green horn is not a liability to govern but without respect and honesty is a liability to govern.

garci tapes cannot be admissible nor competent but can be relevant with the factual evidence like tampered ER’s, ballot boxes, and etc…kunsabagay…yung laman lang naman ng Garci tapes ay rigging of votes, massive fraud, kidnapping, and etc…di masama yun para nakawin ang boto ayon sa mga taong may isip daw na mabuti…tama sila kasi may laman ang utak nila…tama sila kasi may mataas silang pinag-aralan…tama ang mandaya, tama ang magnakaw, tama ang pumatay para maitago ang katotohanan, tama ang mag-kidnap, tama ang lahat ng ito kasi magiging 1st world list ang Pilipinas in less than 3 years of GMA’s Presidency

about Lozada and Joey’s wired tapes…the same thing…cannot be admissible nor competent sa court…pero di naman sila idedemanda ng mga taong na-involve doon sa tape…pero pwede silang i-harass ng i-harass ng mga na-involve sa tape…so kaya malamang kaya kumanta na lang sila ng kundiman sa malaking puno ng kawayan…at para matigil na yung harassment(kung meron lang ha)na ginagawa sa kanilang dalawa after mai-tape yung conversation nilang dalawa sa mga taong nabanggit sa wired tape. kunsabagay, ayon kay Lozada…sabi sa kanya ni Abalos…marami siyang kakilala and so on…yan yung time na before siya mag-dalwang isip kumanta ng kundiman…para sa akin haka-haka lang ito na hindi talaga nangyari.



February 28th, 2008 at 1:01 am

PGMA impeachment was stopped at the House because the majority administration congressmen voted to throw out the claims made against her.

Now they are blocking it by saying that only one impeachment attempt can be made per year. So it seems we have to wait till October this year before another one can be filed.

When can we get any justice around here??



February 28th, 2008 at 1:14 am

More on the Hello Garci recordings…

SC Decision on ‘Hello, Garci’ Falls Short in Upholding Press Freedom (February 18, 2008):

The majority opinion penned by Chief Justice Puno considers the tapes a form of “unprotected expression” and may therefore be restrained if government can show that its airing can endanger national security.

So its still open to charges of illegal wiretapping.


Ambuot Saimo

March 5th, 2008 at 3:51 am

I backtracked a little and I found that there are still some comments that the gloria-garci tapes cannot be admitted for violation of right to privacy and all I can say is -you are dead wrong. There are a lot of exemptions to the general rule and based on my LEXIS search under the headnotes “illegal wiretap & admissibility” it gave me 102 cases. I did not check them all but among the first 10 cases there are two which fit squarely on the gloria-garci situation. But of course these are U.S. cases.



March 5th, 2008 at 10:50 pm


Alecks would be beaming from ear to ear to find that before you make a post, you made a research on it.

Here is the rule: illegal wiretap is not admissible unless the wiretap was made with prior approval from a judicial officer.

Exception: Foreign wiretaps (here in the US, but absolutely not allowed in case of domestic wiretaps, unless approved by the judge.)

FISA Exceptions to Requirement for Court Order. (Foreign Intelligence Security Act) Three current provisions of FISA provide for some measure of electronic surveillance without a court order to gather foreign intelligence information in specified circumstances, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1802 (electronic surveillance of certain foreign powers without a court order upon Attorney General certification) 1805(f) (emergency authorization of electronic surveillance for up to 72 hours.

The Origin of Wiretap Warrants. In Katz v. United States,30 the Court held for the first time that the protections of the Fourth Amendment extend to circumstances involving electronic surveillance of oral communications without physical intrusion.31 In response, Congress enacted Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (“Title III”)32 to provide for search warrants to authorize electronic surveillance for law enforcement purposes, but prohibiting such surveillance in other instances not authorized by law. The Katz Court noted that its holding did not extend to cases involving national security, and Congress did not then attempt to regulate national security surveillance. Title III, as originally enacted, contained an exception.

But admissibility of the wiretaps was not my point. I said we do not see the constitutional objection on the GARCI-GMA tapes because they supported our bias that GMA cheated the 2004 elections but we conveniently invoke the constitutional objection on the Lozada wiretaps.

Lately I also said that we invoke the principle of “separation of church and state” when the Bishops’ group did not call for GMA’s ouster, but we would have conveniently brushed aside the issue of “separation of church and state” had the Bishops’ group supported the move to oust GMA from power….

Goose and Gander Argument again?

Comment Form