It's final: SC junks Truth Commission EO

MANILA, Philippines - A day after President Aquino announced that the anti-corruption campaign is his personal war, the Supreme Court (SC) junked with finality his first executive order creating a Truth Commission to investigate anomalies that hounded the administration of former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Voting 9-2 during a full court session yesterday, the justices stood by their decision in December last year that Executive Order No. 1 was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause.

Malacañang officials were not surprised by the SC ruling.

“We respect the decision of the SC regarding the constitutionality of Executive Order 1 and will now focus on moving forward as we continue our campaign to make erring officials accountable for the anomalies we have unearthed,” said Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr.

“We remain undeterred in our efforts to investigate and build solid cases against those who used their positions in government to enrich themselves at the expense of our people,” he said in a statement.

He said the administration could not ignore the crimes of the past “if we hope to build a country where the rule of law prevails and where those who wrong us are punished.”

“The President has shown his resolve and his commitment to address corruption with appointees at the Office of the Ombudsman - retired justice Conchita Carpio-Morales and lawyer Francis Jardeleza who are known for their competence, work ethic, integrity, and independence,” Ochoa stressed.

For his part, Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Eduardo de Mesa said: “We have been waiting for that. Now we can move forward on whether to abolish the body all together or amend the EO (executive order).”

“We have been waiting for that. Now we can move forward on whether to abolish the body altogether or amend the EO (executive order),” chief presidential legal counsel Eduardo de Mesa said.

Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said that since the SC has spoken, the issue has been settled. 

“We will, however, continue to explore other avenues for the truth to come out,” Lacierda added.  

SC spokesman Midas Marquez said the Court has denied with finality the Palace’s appeal for failure of the Office of Solicitor General (OSG) to raise new and substantial argument that would warrant reversal of the ruling.

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

The SC dismissed the argument of the Palace in its motion for reconsideration filed through the OSG that there was no intent to unfairly discriminate against the previous administration.

It also did not buy the claim that the limited scope of EO 1 was meant to prevent unnecessary overburden that might lead to loss of effectiveness of the commission.

The SC stood by its findings that the government had failed to justify why it singled out Arroyo’s administration in its truth body.

“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 Court had said in its ruling last Dec. 7.

The Palace questioned this and argued that the order “does not single out specific individuals but refers to questionable transactions in the administration of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo” and there is “no invidious classification of the transactions during the previous administration since such classification is based on substantial distinctions that make for real differences.”

The OSG explained that to rule that the Arroyo administration “cannot be subject of a fact-finding inquiry as a class, while other administrations (which) had already been subjected to a similar inquiry, will result in the conferment to that particular administration a privilege not enjoyed by the past administration – the privilege of immunity from any inquiry, fact-finding or otherwise into its transactions.”

It also told the Court that the President has the “inherent power to investigate and the honorable court cannot prescribe the subject, purpose and manner of his investigation.”

But the SC was firm in its ruling that the singling out of Arroyo in EO 1 was not just prioritization.

The Court had suggested in the 49-page decision approved by 10 magistrates, including Chief Justice Renato Corona, for “a revision of the executive issuance so as to include the earlier past administrations would allow it to pass the test of reasonableness.”

But instead of revising, the Palace opted to appeal the ruling. – With Delon Porcalla