SC JUSTICES VOTED, VOIDED TRUTH BODY / SC: VEHICLE FOR VINDICTIVENESS
MANILA, DECEMBER 9, 2010 (STAR) By Edu Punay - Chief Justice Renato Corona and nine other Supreme Court (SC) justices voted yesterday to void the Truth Commission created to investigate alleged anomalies in the nine-year administration of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Voting 10-5, the SC ruled that Executive Order 1 was unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause in singling out reports of graft and corruption in the Arroyo administration.
However, lawyer Ma. Victoria Gleoresty Guerra, acting SC public information chief, said the ruling is not yet final since respondents still have 15 days from receipt of notice to file an appeal under the Rules of Court.
The SC could reverse the decision depending on arguments in the motion for reconsideration, she added.
Guerra said once the ruling becomes final, the Truth Commission chaired by former ambassador Hilario Davide Jr. should be dissolved.
"Whether the Court rules for or against Mrs. Arroyo, the fact remains that all of them – except Justice (Lourdes) Sereno – were appointed by her," she said.
"But as you can see in this decision, four of those who dissented were also appointees of the former president.
"This means justices resolved the case based on what they feel was right and based solely on the law."
House Minority Leader Edcel Lagman and businessman Louis Biraogo filed separate petitions questioning the constitutionality of EO 1.
Joining Lagman in his petition were Representatives Rodolfo Albano Jr. of Isabela, Simeon Datumanong of Maguindanao, and Orlando Fua Jr. of Siquijor through lawyer Johween Atienza.
In his petition filed last Aug. 12, Lagman said EO 1 violates the separation of powers of the executive and legislative branches of government.
"EO 1 arrogates the power of Congress to create government or public offices, agencies and commissions, thereby breaching the constitutionally ordained separation of powers," read the petition.
Petitioners said the Truth Commission has quasi-judicial powers, which requires a law and could not be given by a mere executive order.
Under Administrative Code of 1987, the Office of the President only has the power to reorganize its administrative structure, not to create new bodies, petitioners added.
Petitioners said the Truth Commission duplicates, if not supercedes, the constitutionally mandated powers of the Office of the Ombudsman and the statutorily vested powers of the Department of Justice (DOJ).
"(The Truth Commission) is an adventure in partisan hostility, a launching pad for trial/conviction by publicity and a mere populist propaganda to mistakenly impress the people that widespread poverty will altogether vanish if corruption is eliminated without even addressing the other major causes of poverty," read the petition.
"Prosecutorial and judicial bodies are in place to take cognizance and jurisdiction over graft and corruption complaints without inventing a Truth Commission... whose findings are only recommendatory and could be rejected by the Ombudsman and DOJ."
Voting with Corona were Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Martin Villarama Jr., Jose Perez and Jose Mendoza, who penned the ruling.
All 10 were appointees of Arroyo.
Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio dissented in the decision. Joining him were Associate Justices Conchita Carpio-Morales, Antonio Eduardo Nachura and Roberto Abad.
Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, President Aquino's lone appointee, voted with the minority.
Truth body vehicle for vindictiveness, retribution, says SC By Benjamin B. Pulta 12/09/2010 MALAYA BUSINESS INSIGHTS
The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday made available to the public its decision written by Associate Justice Jose Mendoza (photo above)¨declaring unconstitutional Executive Order 1 putting up the controversial Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) .
As earlier announced by the tribunal's spokesmen, the ruling said Malacañang should have included previous administrations under the coverage of the PTC which had originally been given a 29-month deadline to complete its fact-finding mission exclusively on the Arroyo administration.
"Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protection clause
cannot sanction. Such discriminating differentiation clearly reverberates to label the commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective retribution,"the majority opinion said.
"The Court, in exercising its power of judicial review, is not imposing its own will upon a co-equal body but rather simply making sure that any act of government is done in consonance with the authorities and rights allocated to it by the Constitution," the tribunal said.
The decision said that while "most government actions are inspired with noble intentions, all geared toward the betterment of the nation and its people...it is important to remember the end does not justify the means."
In ordering the palace to cease and desist from implementing EO1 the court said "no matter how noble and worthy of admiration the purpose of an act, but if the means to be employed in accomplishing it is simply irreconcilable with constitutional parameters, then it cannot still be allowed. The Court cannot just turn a blind eye and simply let it pass. It will continue to uphold the Constitution and its enshrined principles."
"The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law. Expediency must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power debase its rectitude."
The tribunal however suggested that "perhaps a revision of the executive issuance so as to include the earlier past administrations would allow it to pass the test of reasonableness and not be an affront to the Constitution,"
"Of all the branches of the government, it is the judiciary which is the most interested in knowing the truth and so it will not allow itself to be a hindrance or obstacle to its attainment. It must, however, be emphasized that the search for the truth must be within constitutional bounds for "ours is still a government of laws and not of men."
In his separate opinion Chief Justice Renato Corona siding with the majority opinion conceded that although the President may supplant and directly exercise the investigatory functions of departments and agencies within the executive department, his power of control under the Constitution and the Administrative Code is confined only to the executive department.
Corona said that "without any law authorizing him, the President cannot legally create a committee to extend his investigatory reach across the boundaries of the executive department to public officers and employees, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories from the private sector during the previous administration without setting apart those who are still in the executive department from those who are not,"
The head magistrate added that only the Ombudsman has the investigatory jurisdiction over them under the Constitution. "There is no law granting to the President the authority to create a committee with concurrent investigatory jurisdiction of this nature," he said.
In his dissenting opinion on the other hand, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said under the ruling, the nine year Arroyo administration will enjoy the distinction of being the only presidency which will not undergo a formal investigation by its successor.
"Ominously, the majority opinion provides from hereon every administration a cloak of immunity against any investigation by its successor administration. This will institutionalize impunity in transgressing anti-corruption and other penal laws. Sadly, the majority opinion makes it impossible to bring good governance to our government," Carpio warned.
He added that "this Court has no power to prevent the President from knowing the facts to understand certain government transactions in the Executive branch, transactions that may need to be reviewed, revived, corrected, terminated or completed,"
In a separate dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Roberto Abad said the " Court is not better placed than the President to make the decision he made,"
" Unlike the President, the Court does not have the full resources of the government available to it. It does not have all the information and data it would need for deciding what objective is fair and viable for a five-member body like the Truth Commission. Only when the President's actions are plainly irrational and arbitrary even to the man on the street can the Court step in from Mount Olympus and stop such actions. "Abad said.
But government lawyers yesterday insist that Malacañang acted within its powers in forming a fact finding body to investigate the previous administration.
Speaking to newsmen, solicitor general Jose Anselmo Cadiz said "the government will file a motion for reconsideration although we know that as of now no one has received a copy of the decision" of the Supreme Court the other day declaring Executive Order No. 1 unconstitutional.
"We believe that in all aspects Executive Order No. 1 (creating the Philippine Truth Commission) was correct,"Cadiz said adding that once they receive a copy the government will have 15 days or until Christmas Eve to file a motion for reconsideration."If we receive it today then we be working till Dec. 24 to be able to file our motion," he added.
"This is a sad day for the country because the Supreme Court prevented President Aquino from fulfilling his mandate to investigate the past administration."
Cadiz also described as "impossible" the preconditions for the body to investigate all previous administrations.
"If we include past administrations then how far back? to Erap (President Joseph Estrada)? to (former President Fidel V.) Ramos? to Cory Aquino?...from Emilio Aguinaldo. What the Supreme Court wants, that all (administrations) be investigated is impossible. Of the past presidents only three are still alive so how can there be equal protection?" Cadiz explained.
The solgen argued that just as "Gloria had Erap investigated, Erap had Ramos investigated for the centennial expo and Cory investigated Marcos."
"I ask the Supreme Court to please take a second look (at its decision) and look at it objectively because at the end of the day...we all want to be remembered well by our countrymen because in the end the people will decide who did the right thing."
The solgen broadly intimated that the high court issued a highly partisan ruling that reeks of politics. The same was said by Justice chief Leila de Lima, who sarcastically said that the insurance of the former president through her appointments to the high court is paying off for her.
The solgen also clarified that contrary to proposals for legislation to create the truth commission, it will source its funding from the office of the president and enumerated that past commissions namely Melo Commission, Zeñarosa Commission under Arroyo and the Saguisag Commission under Estrada all had the same funding source without hitches in the past.
However, it is also fact that there had been no challenges to the past administrations on their creations of past probe bodies. The high court cannot act unless an act of the executive, or the legislature, is challenged before the bench.
Asked to comment on suggestions that the tribunal acted out of loyalty to Arroyo Cadiz only said magistrates are "only human", and urged members of the tribunal to "rise above this (since) our responsibility is to the countrymen and not to only one person."
De Lima branded the ruling as a "political decision," adding that the decision is a setback in the government's campaign against graft and corruption.
"The decision on the Truth Commission shows characteristics of a political decision. The voting by the members of the Court on political questions, namely, on actions of the Aquino administration against the past administration, readily shows that the lines which now divide decision-making in the Court are principally political and no longer doctrinal,"De Lima stressed.
"There is basis for the speculation that the investment of the past administration in the Office of the Ombudsman and high court are now paying off, as present executive actions to correct injustices and abuses of the past regime and to punish the perpetrators are frustrated at every turn, not for lack of effort on the part of the present administration, but because of wise institutional investment of the past regime," h she added.
----------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright, 2010 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved
----------------------------------------------------------
PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------
