SC grills Lagman over petition vs Truth Commission

The Supreme Court on Tuesday grilled House Minority Leader Edcel Lagman over his petition to nullify President Benigno Aquino III’s legal order creating an independnet panel that will investigate anomalies in the Arroyo administration. Lagman and three other congressional allies of former President and incumbent Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo are asking the court to nullify Executive Order No. 1 formalizing the creation of the Truth Commission. The petitioners argued that the Truth Commission “duplicates and supplants" the functions of existing agencies like the Office of the Ombudsman, and violates the equal protection clause by targeting only controversies in the Arroyo administration. “The search for truth is universal, not parochial. It must be timeless like eternity and limitless like the horizons. If truth is to be achieved, justice served and corruption eradicated, then the 'Truth Commission' is an aberration," Lagman said during the court's first oral arguments on the petition. Lagman also said EO No. 1 usurps Congress’ power to create new public offices and appropriate funds for such, and decried the supposed granting of quasi-judicial powers to the Commission, to be headed by retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide. Quasi-judicial powers Several members of the Supreme Court’s 15-member bench, however, questioned Lagman’s claim that quasi-judicial powers were granted to the Commission, pointing out that the Commission only has recommendatory—and not prosecutorial—powers. Associate Justice Antonio Carpio asked Lagman to define quasi-judicial powers, which the congressman said something that includes the power of an administrative agency to adjudicate the rights of persons before it and ascertain facts “upon which a decision is to be made and rights and liabilities determined." “How can you say it’s recommendatory and at the same time quasi-judicial? They conflict," Carpio said. Carpio further said the Commission “does not establish rights and obligations that are binding. They just make factual findings and their own conclusions which are just recommendatory." Carpio also opposed Lagman’s stance that Presidential Decree 1416, which gives the President the power to create new government offices, is effectively repealed by Section 31 of the Revised Administrative Code, which gives the president the power to reorganize the Office of the President. Associate Justice Jose Mendoza repeatedly pointed out during his questioning that the Commission’s powers were only recommendatory. “Is not the ultimate disposition of the Truth Commission, as a fact-finding body, only recommendatory?" he asked. “Do you agree, if the Truth Commission makes a recommendation, it’s not binding?" Lagman said that to the petitioners’ minds, the Commission’s power “transcends a recommendatory nature" because Section 2g of EO No. 1 said that among the Commission’s functions is to “turn over from time to time, for expeditious prosecution, to the appropriate prosecutorial authorities, by means of a special or interim report and recommendation, all evidence on corruption of public officers and employees and their private sector co-principals." He especially noted the phrase “for expeditious prosecution." Associate Justice Roberto Abad, also blasted this argument, pointing out that EO No. 1 “does not say [the Truth Commission] must decide the case." “Actually it says there (EO No. 1) ‘turn over’," he said. 'Like the Marcos administration' Abad said that while he agrees that the non-creation of a new government body that will investigate corruption cases would be more “economical," his “reading" of EO No. 1 is that it was created not just to lead to the prosecution of officials during the Arroyo administration. He said he is under the impression that the Commission’s purpose was also “to form some basis for study because the Arroyo administration, like the Marcos administration, lasted for many years." Arroyo ruled the country since 2001 when she was ushered to the presidency following the ouster of then President Joseph Estrada, until June 2010. The administration of the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos lasted two decades. “It’s an important segment of our past history," said Abad. “So the purpose is not merely to prosecute but also for us to know the truth and form a foundation or basis for future actions." Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Aranal-Sereno, Aquino's first and so far only appointee to the Supreme Court, noted that there is “public perception" that there could have been possible corruption in the Arroyo government. “If there is this public perception, is it not true that in many countries the resort is political-legal solutions in the form of truth commissions?" she asked. After Lagman said that there is questionable basis for the supposed public perception, Sereno said, “If you are saying that you are not convinced there is truth to the widespread perception of the Arroyo administration, the suspicion on Arroyo administration, why then are you not welcoming the closure?" Lagman replied that the Truth Commission’s goal might not be to find closure to corruption controversies. “It could be used as a launching pad for prosecution and conviction by publicity," he said. Chief Justice Renato Corona, whom Arroyo appointed to the top judicial post in May, kept his questioning short. He questioned why Lagman thought there would be “irreparable injury" to the petitioners if the Supreme Court does not issue a temporary restraining order on the formation of the Truth Commission. Lagman replied that implementing EO No. 1 would usurp Congress’ powers and therefore do “substantial damage" to the petitioners as they are members of the House of Representatives. Lagman, when asked by Corona to comment on the public’s constitutionally-enshrined right to know, said there is no need to “invent" a new agency since the people’s right to know “can be channeled though existing agencies." “The people's right to know should be consistent with the prescriptions of the Constitution on separation of powers and equal protection clauses," the lawmaker from Bicol added. Ferocious or toothless tiger? The Supreme Court will resume its oral arguments on September 14. Despite being grilled by the magistrates during the clarificatory questioning, Lagman said it is still early to presume that the Supreme Court is keen on upholding the constitutionality of EO No. 1 and striking down their petition. “You cannot gauge the sentiments of the justices and their eventual position (through) the questions asked to the counsels. These are what you call devil’s advocates’ questions. And that is good, that there are devil’s advocates’ questions. And without devils’ advocates’ questions, our petition would not be canonized," Lagman told reporters after the oral arguments. He likewise said that if the controversial executive order has no power, it should be voided; if it is too powerful, it should not be allowed to be implemented. "If it is a toothless tiger, then it has no reason to exist. If it is a ferocious tiger, then it should be confined to where it belongs. If it is a ferocious tiger, it must go. If it is a toothless tiger, it should also go." For his part, Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz, who represents the government, said he is confident that the court will not see the need to restrain the implementation of EO No. 1 and the creation of the Truth Commission. “The purpose of that commission is truth-telling. Sometimes, we have to have the facts before we can submit a complaint to the Ombudsman or to the DOJ (Department of Justice. The function is to tell the truth; the public has a right and I think that is equally important," he said. “It is up to the court to be able to evaluate the merits...Well, we are confident that we have a very good case that EO 1 is constitutional and therefore, we don't need a temporary restraining order," Cadiz added. - with Sophia Regina Dedace/KBK, GMANews.TV