Jude Josue Sabio SPEAKER Pantaleon Alvarez categorically said that showing the so-called de Lima sex video in the House inquiry does not violate any law.  But as correctly stated  by Sen. Grace Poe, there is a law which is  Republic Act No. 9995 or  “An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Photo and Video Voyeurism, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and For Other Purposes.” This law was signed into law by President Arroyo on Feb. 10, 2010, or more than six years ago. The House inquiry intends to show a “sex video” purporting to depict a woman said to be Sen. Leila de Lima engaged in sex. But the law makes “video voyeurism” a criminal offense.  In the context of a sex video, “video voyeurism” means the taking of a video coverage of the sexual act of a person who expects such act to be private and who does not give consent to the coverage. The law also punishes as a criminal offense the act of  “showing or exhibiting” such video coverage without the written consent of the person whose sexual act is recorded in the video.  The showing or exhibition is a crime, even if such person has consented to the video coverage. The consent for the showing must be written, not just oral.  This strict requirement is needed, even if the person has himself allowed the video coverage. According to Speaker Alvarez, the House inquiry can look into the sex video as the only material evidence of a matter in aid of legislation.  This matter is the purported love affair between Sen. de Lima and her driver Ronnie Dayan.  According to President Dutere, de Lima’s driver cum lover was the conduit between her and the Bilibid druglords. But the law does not allow a product of “video voyeurism” to be shown or exhibited in a legislative investigation.  In technical legal parlance, it is inadmissible. In no uncertain terms, the law says that any video obtained  by way of “video voyeurism” shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.  Simply put, an illegal sex video cannot be used to prove anything in any investigation. Needless to say, the  House inquiry is an “investigation” in Congress, and therefore a “legislative investigation.”   The fact that it is “in aid of legislation” does not make it any different from what an investigation is.  In this legislative investigation, the sex video is absolutely a legal taboo. This is so, even if it is the only “material evidence,” as claimed by Speaker Alvarez. Sen. Panfilo Lacson quipped that the sex video suffers from a lack of authentication. What he means is that before a video can be used as evidence, it must first be shown who recorded it and under what circumstances it was recorded. The authentication can lead to a determination of the content of the sex video. The person who made the video can tell who is the purported woman in the sex video, precisely because he is the one taking the video. Speaker Alvarez simply said that the sex video is to be shown. But he has not announced the person who has recorded the video and is willing to say so. In the face of the legal bar against video voyeurism, it is legally necessary for this person to surface, so that the people will know, from his personal knowledge, if the woman depicted in the video is really Sen. de Lima. The bottomline is clear, that the identity of the purported woman in the sex video should first be known. If it is Sen. de Lima, then Speaker Alvarez should show that fact to the whole world, by naming and presenting the person who recorded the sex video.  That is legally necessary, because two questions must also be answered. Did she consent to the video coverage? Did she give her “written consent” to the “showing or exhibition” of the video coverage? Unfortunately for Speaker Alvarez and his allies in the House, information has emerged in the print and social media that the sex video is fake. Some netizens have claimed their involvement in the fake video that originated from a porno site. One or two even said that they are the woman depicted in the sex video. Obviously, Sen. de Lima has not admitted and will never admit the sex video. In fact, she has strongly denounced the video. What makes it extremely difficult for Speaker Alvarez is that the law allows only for one exemption in the use of a sex video.  And this exemption does not even pertain to a legislative investigation.  The law says a peace officer can use a sex video in a civil or criminal investigation or trial of the crime of video voyeurism.  A civil or criminal investigation or trial happens only in a court of law.  The use of such evidence can be made only if allowed by a written order of the court. Previously, Speaker Alvarez confidently stated that he has allowed the use of the sex video in the House inquiry. It may be conceded that as leader of the House, he has the political power to allow it, just like the judicial power of a judge in a trial. But prudence dictates that, as a matter of fairness in line with the policy of the law, he should first have determined if the woman in the sex video is really Sen. de Lima. That is the bottomline. Then, as a matter of inter-parliamentary courtesy, as said by Sen. Franklin Drilon, he must ask Sen. de Lima if she has consented to the video coverage and if she gives her “written consent” to its showing or exhibition. No doubt, Speaker Alvarez is kowtowing to the wishes of President Duterte when he allowed the exhibition of the sex video. But recently, in a PDP Laban political gathering in Iloilo, Speaker Alvarez flip-flopped, saying that he leaves it to the House panel to decide on whether or not to exhibit the sex video. This sudden turn is unexpected, considering that Speaker Alvarez is a key ally and buddy of the President who announced his loss of appetite upon watching the sex video. Speaker Alvarez’ backtracking may stem from his realization of his folly borne out of his ignorance of the law, which is shameful to him. If it is any indication, not too long ago his President admitted error in his drug matrix. Perhaps, also, he now disapproves of the personal desire of his President to inflict unnecessary shame upon the womanhood of Sen. de Lima. But in the end, it might be helpful for him, as a damage control, to heed the objection of his fellow female colleagues whose message to him is downright simple. The House should not break the very same law that it made. (Jude Josue Sabio is a lawyer from Misamis Oriental.)