SC STANDS BY RULING V. TRUTH COMMISSION

High Court Affirms December Ruling that EO 1 will be used to persecute GMA

A RULING by the Supreme Court (SC) has turned down Malacanang's last ditch appeal to revive the Truth Commission to investigate dealings of the Arroyo administration, a key program of the present government.

Speaking to newsmen, Court Administrator Midas Marquez announced the court decision to uphold its earlier ruling declaring unconstitutional President Aquino’s Executive Order No. 1 creating a truth commission which was tasked to investigate anomalies during the Arroyo administration.

“A second motion for reconsideration would no longer be entertained because such pleading would be prohibited under the rules of court,” he told reporters in a news briefing.

Last December in a vote of 10 to 5, the court voted to declare EO 1 unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution inasmuch as it singles out investigation of graft and corrupt practices in the previous administration.

This time the official voting was 10-3 following the retirement of two dissenters in the original opinion namely Associate Justices Eduardo Nachura and Conchita Carpio-Morales who was recently appointed Ombudsman.

The Aquino administration through Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz earlier had claimed that extending the scope of investigations indefinitely beyond the Arroyo administration is unrealistic and, as such, a matter of practice an incumbent administration only looks into the dealings of the one which preceded it.

Chief Justice Renato Corona, Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion, Presbitero Velasco, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Martin Villarama, Jose Perez and Jose Mendoza voted to declare the EO creating Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) unconstitutional.

The PTC headed by former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. would have investigated the countless corruption scandals during the Arroyo administration.Senior Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Eduardo Nachura,

Roberto Abad, and Ma. Lourdes Sereno dissented from the majority ruling.

The original SC decision written by Associate Justice Jose Mendoza said Malacanang 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 reasoned in its ruling.

The decision said that while "most government actions are inspired with noble intentions, all geared towards 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 9 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.###