G.R. No. 236118 , January 24, 2023
ACT TEACHERS REP. ANTONIO TINIO, BAYAN MUNA REP. PARTY-LIST REP. CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE, AND ANAKPAWIS REP. PARTY-LIST ARIEL “KA AYIK” CASILAO, PETITIONERS, VS. PRESIDENT RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SPEAKER PANTALEON ALVAREZ, DEPUTY SPEAKER RANEO ABU, MAJORITY LEADER RODOLFO FARIÑAS, AND DEPUTY MAJORITY LEADER REP. ARTHUR DEFENSOR, JR., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 236295] LABAN KONSYUMER, INC. AND ATTY. VICTORIO MARIO A. DIMAGIBA, PETITIONERS, VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE SECRETARY CARLOS G. DOMINGUEZ III, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE COMMISSIONER CAESAR R. DULAY, HOUSE SPEAKER PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ IN REPRESENTATION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND SENATE PRESIDENT AQUILINO D. PIMENTEL III IN REPRESENTATION OF THE SENATE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This is a Separate Concurring Opinion by Chief Justice Gesmundo in consolidated petitions challenging the passage of the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) law. The petitioners submitted a livestream video recording of the House of Representatives’ proceedings on December 13, 2017, as evidence. This recording was sanctioned by the Internal Rules of Procedure of the House. During the Court’s deliberations, a position was advanced that this livestream video recording is a public document under the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the livestream video recording of the House proceedings should be classified as a public document under the general rules on evidence or as an electronic document governed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence.

RULING

The Separate Concurring Opinion concurs with the main decision to deny the petitions. It holds that the livestream video recording is an electronic document governed by the special Rules on Electronic Evidence, not a public document under the general rules on evidence. The opinion states that a livestream video recording falls within the definition of an electronic document under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, as it is a representation of information by which a fact may be proved and is produced electronically. Since the special Rules on Electronic Evidence cover such recordings, resort to the general rules on evidence is improper. The opinion further notes that the video recording presented by the petitioners was not identified, explained, or authenticated by the person who made it or by someone competent to testify to its accuracy, as required under Rule 11 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, and is therefore inadmissible. The opinion also agrees with the ponencia’s view that the video recording is insufficient to prove the petitioners’ claims and lacks the binding effect of Congressional Journals.