Ex-SC Chief Justice Davide: High court suppressing truth

(Updated 6:52 p.m.) Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide claimed that the current SC justices are protecting other people's interests when they junked with finality the Aquino administration's appeal to revive the Truth Commission. In a statement on Thursday, Davide lamented the high court's final decision to void President Benigno Aquino III's Executive Order No. 1, which created the Truth Commission to investigate corruption scandals involving former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Davide was supposed to head the five-member Truth Commission. Sought for comment, SC spokesperson and Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez said that Davide is entitled to his opinion of the high court. "We respect the view of the former chief justice, in the same way we respect the views of others. But the court has finally spoken on the issue and no less than the Chief Executive [President Benigno Aquino III] has accepted the decision of the court. Perhaps, it's about time we move on," Marquez said in a text message. "The resolution could cause the loss of my faith, trust and confidence in the Supreme Court which I had faithfully served for nearly fifteen years; more than seven of which as its Chief Justice," said Davide. "By its decision and resolution the Supreme Court has made itself an instrument to suppress or prevent the discovery of the truth," added Davide, who retired as chief justice in 2005. SC ruling on EO 1 In a vote of 9-2 on Tuesday, the high court ruled with finality that EO 1 is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution. The SC said the Aquino order violated the constitution because the Truth body targeted only the Arroyo administration. However, in his statement, Davide questioned the timing of the SC's denial of the Aquino government's appeal on Tuesday, a day after Aquino delivered his second State of the Nation Address (SONA). In his SONA, Aquino announced the appointment of retired SC associate justice Conchita Carpio Morales as the new Ombudsman. "The timing of its promulgation... clearly proves beyond doubt that the Court has become a protector of some people. It delayed for several months, and only after the retirement of two Justices who wrote strong dissenting opinions, the release of the resolution which was expected anyway," said Davide. The two retired justices that Davide referred to were Morales and Eduardo Nachura, who both dissented from the majority and said EO 1 should be upheld. Erroneous application of doctrine Davide likewise said the SC majority erred in using the equal protection clause in justifying the unconstitutionality of EO 1. "It perpetuates its patently wrong and erroneous application of the doctrine of equal protection of the law," said the former chief justice. Despite his criticisms against the SC's decision, Davide still expressed hope that the Aquino administration will still ferret out the truth, with the assumption of Morales as the new Ombudsman. "The Supreme Court will not succeed. For the truth will triumph and prevail despite and inspite of the Supreme Court. The Administration and the new Ombudsman, Justice Carpio Morales will see to it that it will triumph and prevail, " Davide said. Aquino's EOs Aside from EO 1, Aquino has other executive orders that were challenged before the Supreme Court. On July 30 last year, a month after he assumed the presidency, Aquino issued EO No. 2 revoking over 900 "midnight appointees" who were given government positions during the appointments ban in the May 2010 election period. Several officials who lost their posts then sought redress from the high court. In October, the SC reinstated the appointment of Bai Omera Dianalan-Lucman to the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos. President Aquino hit the court’s ruling, ruing that it had “effectively turned back the clock" and “dishonors the decency of those who had the courtesy to resign." The Supreme Court defended its decision by pointing out that its reinstatement of was an isolated decision, and not a blanket resolution applicable to other so-called Arroyo ‘midnight appointees’. The other executive issuances being questioned at the high court are:

Executive Order No. 3, which revokes Arroyo's EO No. 883;

Executive Order No. 7, which suspends the perks and fat bonuses received by executives of government-owned and -controlled corporations (GOCCs) and government financial institutions (GFIs); and

Executive Order No. 13, which abolished the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) to pave the way for the creation of Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODESLA). The SC is yet to rule on the constitutionality of EOs 2, 3, 7, and 13. - VVP, GMA News