Justice Chief Should Probe Wiretapping – Law Professor

“Since cellphones are just radio devices, radio signals emanating from your phone can be received and recorded just like any other radio device. It is true that signals from digital GSM phones are encrypted as the phone companies say but these signals can still be decrypted off-line with a computer and enough time. Essentially these are what the expensive equipment do.

”Of course the task of the wiretapper becomes easier if they have access to the phone companies. Or to your phone.”

Admissible or not

Former Army Capt. Rene Jarque, who used to head the military’s Psychological Operations Department, declined to comment when asked whether the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP) indeed taps telephone conversations.

But Jarque, who is also a convenor of the broad Action against Corruption and Tyranny Now! (ACT Now), chose to comment on the issue’s legal and political aspects. “Legally, the wiretapped conversations are inadmissible as evidence (as in our system, conviction can only happen if there is admissible testimony, documentary or physical evidence),” he said, “but what happens now that it is out and people are aware. You know the crime was committed but the evidence precludes conviction.”

But according to Leonen, who is also a convenor of the recently-launched Movement of Concerned Citizens for Civil Liberties (MCCCL), it has yet to be proven whether the contents of the tape were indeed obtained by wiretapping. Sorsogon Rep. Francis Escudero, House Minority Leader, expressed a similar view June 17 in an interview over GMA-7.

Beyond wiretapping

Leonen also said that the issue goes beyond the Anti-Wiretapping Law. “Gonzales says there was wiretapping,” he pointed out. “If there was no wiretapping, the conversation would be fictitious. He is putting himself into a corner. If he says there was wiretapping, it means there was communication between whoever is the woman on the tape and the man.”

“Why doesn’t he investigate the conversation?” asked Leonen, who also serves as legal counsel of the University of the Philippines.

Macapagal-Arroyo, likewise, should order Gonzales to investigate the contents of the tape and persuade both houses of Congress to do so, Leonen said. “Regardless of legality, she is obliged to explain the issues related to allegations against her because she is the president of the Republic of the Philippines,” Leonen explained.

As regards Gonzales, Leonen had this to say: “It is not right for the secretary of justice to act as the president’s lawyer. The secretary of justice is a public official, our lawyer that is supposed to take care of the interest of the state. He is not Macapagal-Arroyo’s secretary.”

Asked whether he thought there was already a betrayal of public trust with the way Macapagal-Arroyo and her allies have been handling the issue, Leonen said: “I cannot say that yet, but as far as I’m concerned, my president disappointed me. Her allies in Congress have disappointed me. There is no serious investigation to find out the contents of the tape, if they are authentic. The only group that can do that is government.”

Betrayal of public trust is an impeachable offense under the 1987 Constitution. Bulatlat

Share This Post