Dissenting SC justice: Truth body's probe not limited to Arroyo

A Supreme Court (SC) justice who disagrees with his colleagues’ decision to junk Executive Order No. 1 creating the Truth Commission insists that EO 1’s focus on controversies under Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s presidency is constitutional and reasonable. In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Antonio Carpio — himself an Arroyo appointee — said EO 1 does not violate the equal protection clause enshrined in the Constitution. EO 1, President Benigno Aquino III’s first issuance, does not limit the Truth Commission’s investigation only to anomalies under the Arroyo presidency because he can expand the body’s mandate, Carpio said. “The President can expand the mandate of the Truth Commission to investigate alleged graft and corruption cases of other past administrations… EO 1 does not confine the mandate of the Truth Commission solely to alleged acts of graft and corruption during the Arroyo administration," the magistrate said in his dissenting opinion made public on Wednesday. Carpio added that EO 1 only “prioritizes" and does not confine the investigation of acts of graft and corruption that may have been committed during the past administration. “The prioritization of such work or assignment does not violate the equal protection clause because the prioritization is based on reasonable grounds," he said. Carpio also argued that it is “reasonable" to give priority to supposed anomalies under the Arroyo administration, since the Marcos (1965-1986), Ramos (1992-1998) and Estrada (1998-2001) presidencies “were already investigated by their successor administrations," while all the other past Philippine presidents are already dead. “The only living President whose administration has not been investigated by its successor administration is President Arroyo... This alone is incontrovertible proof that the Arroyo administration is not being singled out for investigation or prosecution," he said. Carpio likewise said in his dissenting opinion that it is “ironic" that the SC chose to junk EO 1, since the high court itself “routinely creates all year round fact-finding bodies to investigate all kinds of complaints" within the judiciary. The magistrate likewise said that the SC’s move to disallow the Truth Commission to perform its task “crushed the hopes of the long suffering Filipino people for an end to graft and corruption in government." “History will record the ruling today of the Court’s majority as a severe case of judicial overreach that made the incumbent President a diminished Executive in an affront to a co-equal branch of government," he said.—JV, GMANews.TV