Distinguo

Distinguo. “I distinguish.” This is how St. Thomas Aquinas is particularly remembered for his Summa Theologiae whereby he steered clear of error and achieved a definitive statement of the truths of our Christian faith.
Now, as the Senate re-opens the Hello Garci issue, I am reminded of this distinguo approach.
In like manner, the Senate needs to make at least three distinctions in order to avoid unnecessary confrontation on GMA’s much-vaunted EO 464 and the possibility of violating the Anti-Wire Tapping Law as to the alleged recorded conversations between GMA and then Comelec Commissioner Garcillano.
First, as I mentioned in my previous column, GMA herself has volunteered information on the said conversations as to do away with the need for the tapes. She then gave us a half-truth only with her I am sorry speech. Surely, we deserve “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” If I were a Senator, I would invite GMA herself on this point. Not her underlings.
Second, the conversations between GMA and the “Comelec official” were not with GMA-the-President but with GMA-the-presidential candidate. Here, I believe, GMA may not validly assert “executive privilege.”
The doctrine of executive privilege applies only to acts of the President, and not to acts of a presidential candidate who happens to be the incumbent.
GMA herself specifically admitted that the conversations she had with “a Comelec official” were all about her votes as presidential candidate. “I was anxious to protect my votes x x x,” she then said on national TV.
In the EO 464 cases of Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita (GR 169777, April 20, 2006), our Supreme Court explained executive privilege as pertaining to the President’s discharge of his official functions—citing Almonte v. Vasquez, 314 Phil. 150, which in turn cited U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 634—thus: