House minority insist Truth Commission unconstitutional

MANILA, Philippines – The minority of the House of Representatives maintained on Tuesday that Executive Order No. 1 (EO 1) creating the Truth Commission is unconstitutional and violates the principle of separation of powers, the equal protection clause, and supersedes the Ombudsman’s constitutionally granted authority to hear and prosecute graft cases involving public officials.

Arguing their case at oral arguments before the Supreme Court (SC), Albay Representative Edcel Lagman, the House minority leader, said it is Congress that is empowered to enact laws creating public offices, agencies and commissions, a power he accused President Benigno Aquino III of usurping by issuing EO 1.

Lagman said that while the president is authorized by the Administrative Code of 1987 to reorganize the Office of the President, this is limited to existing agencies and offices. He pointed out that the Truth Commission, which Aquino tasked to investigate alleged corruption during the administration of his predecessor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, was not created as an adjunct agency of the Office of the President since it is an independent body with quasi-judicial power.

Asked by Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno  why he opposed the Truth Commission when this could bring closure to the perception of widespread graft and corruption during the previous administration, Lagman replied: “We don’t welcome this particular closure because as a matter of fact it might not be closure at all. It could be used as a launching pad for prosecution and conviction by publicity.”

“The Truth Commission does not achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency in the operation of the Office of the President. In fact, it duplicates and supplants the functions and powers of the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice even as its budget lacks transparency and limit,” Lagman said.

“Aside from illegally seizing the power of the legislature to appropriate public funds, the Office of the President violated a cardinal tenet that a budget must be a certain or specific amount,” he added.

He said EO 1 also lacked transparency because “no specific amount is appropriated, no ceiling is provided and no definitive funding source is identified” for the Truth Commission.

EO 1, he said, also violates the equal protection clause because it singles out only officials of the Arroyo administration, “as if graft was unique to them and corruption was their species.”

“Classifying officials and employees of the Arroyo administration as a distinct category is not germane to the purpose of the executive issuance because stamping out graft and corruption must ensnare all possible respondents from all administrations – past, present and eventually future regimes,” Lagman said.

Lagman stressed the creation of the Truth Commission duplicated the constitutional mandate of the Ombudsman to investigate complaints or reported cases of graft and corruption, and pointed out it was Aquino’s later mother, the former president Corazon, who signed Republic Act 6670 creating the Office of the Ombudsman and gave it her full support.

“There is no mistaking therefore that the Office of the Ombudsman is the constitutionally and statutorily authorized quasi-judicial body to investigate and prosecute cases of graft and corruption,” Lagman said.

The petition against the Truth Commission was filed by Lagman and Representatives Rodolfo Albano Jr. (1st district, Isabela), Simeon Datumanong (2nd district, Maguindanao) and Orlando Fua Sr (Siquijor).

The petition called the Truth Commission, headed by former Chief Justice Hilario Davide, an “exercise in futility and an enterprise in partisan hostility.”

Oral arguments on the lawmakers’ petition resume Tuesday with Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz expected to defend the creation of the Truth Commission.