It's final: EO 1 creating Truth Commission is unconstitutional

(Updated 5:08 p.m.) President Benigno Aquino III's plan to create a body to investigate the corruption allegations that hounded his predecessor suffered another legal blow from the Supreme Court. This was after the high court on Tuesday upheld its earlier ruling nullifying Aquino's Executive Order No. 1, which created the Philippine Truth Commission, for being unconstitutional. The SC said that the controversial order violated the 1987 Constitution's equal protection clause by targeting the corruption scandals involving the administration of former President and current legislator Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Voting 9-2 on Tuesday, the SC denied with finality Malacañang's motion for reconsideration that sought the reversal of the court's Dec. 7, 2010 decision that struck down EO 1. In Malacañang, presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda said: "Since the Supreme Court has spoken, the issue has been settled. We will, however, continue to explore other avenues for the truth to come out." At a news briefing, SC spokesman and Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez said the appeal failed to present new arguments that warrant the reversal of the court's earlier ruling. "The motion for reconsideration in the petition questioning the Philippine Truth Commission has been denied with finality, the basic issues having been passed upon and there being no substantial arguments for motion for reconsideration," Marquez said. The majority who voted to junk EO 1 are Chief Justice Renato Corona and Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion, Presbitero Velasco, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Martin Villarama, Jose Perez, and Jose Mendoza. Those who dissented were Associate Justices Antonio Carpio and Roberto Abad. Only 11 magistrates participated in the voting because Associate Justices Mariano del Castillo and Maria Lourdes Sereno because were absent. Associate Justices Conchita Carpio-Morales and Eduardo Nachura, who belonged to the minority in the Dec. 2010 voting, had already retired from the high court bench last June. The establishment of a Truth Commission was one of Aquino's biggest campaign promises, and the decision of the SC — 14 out of 15 members of which are Arroyo appointees — to strike it down came as a blow to the administration when the SC handed down its decision last December. SC decision In the December 7 ruling, the SC found EO 1 unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it singled out for investigation reports of graft and corrupt practices in the Arroyo administration. Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that: "No person... shall be denied the equal protection of the laws." The SC's decision, however, suggested that the Malacañang can skirt the constitutional provision on equal protection by revising EO 1 and including earlier previous administrations in the Truth Commission's anti-corruption inquiries. "Lest it be misunderstood, this is not the death knell for a truth commission as nobly envisioned by the present administration. 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," the SC said. Palace's appeal But instead of revising EO 1 as suggested by the high court, Malacañang instead filed a motion for reconsideration to exhaust all legal remedies at the Supreme Court. In its appeal filed last December, the OSG denied that the order violated the Charter's equal protection clause. "First, the plain language of EO No. 1 shows that there is no intent to unfairly discriminate against the previous administration. Second, EO. No. 1 does not single out individuals but refers to questionable transactions during the Arroyo regime," part of the motion read. The Palace also said the equal protection clause does not cover the creation of fact-finding inquiries because "such investigations do not create rights or impose obligations." Malacañang added that because the Supreme Court ruled that a President "has the power to investigate to ensure that laws are faithfully executed, the high tribunal cannot prescribe the subject, purpose, and manner of such investigation." The Supreme Court, however, did not find merit in Malacañang's appeal, giving rise to its decision on Tuesday to deny the motion for reconsideration with finality. — with Amita Legaspi/KBK/RSJ, GMA News