Supreme Court orders Palace to answer petition on PAGC abolition

MANILA, Philippines -  Malacañang has to answer a petition before the Supreme Court (SC) questioning the legality of Executive Order 13 abolishing the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC).

In a resolution last Friday, Chief Justice Renato Corona ordered respondents led by Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. to file their comment within 10 days from receipt of notice.

They were required to answer allegations of Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) chairman Prospero Pichay that the transfer of PAGC’s functions to a new investigative and adjudicatory division at the Office of the Deputy Secretary for Legal Affairs (IAD-ODESLA) is unconstitutional.

Other respondents are the IAD-ODESLA and Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima.

The SC did not grant the temporary restraining order sought by Pichay.

However, spokesman Midas Marquez said the SC may still issue a TRO upon submission of Malacañang’s comment.

Under SC rules, the Chief Justice can issue a TRO on any petition considered urgent when the SC is not in session.

The resolution would just be submitted for concurrence of other justices when they resume session.

In his petition filed last Wednesday, Pichay alleged that EO 13 usurped the power of Congress to create and allocate funds to a new, distinct office with investigative, adjudicatory and recommendatory functions and to delegate quasi-judicial powers to an administrative agency.

EO 13 also encroaches on the exclusive powers of the Office of the Ombudsman, he added.

Then Preesident Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo created the PAGC in April 2001 to investigate and hear administrative cases and complaints against personnel in the executive department.

Aquino abolished the agency upon assuming office.

Pichay’s action arose from an order of the IAD-ODESLA last April 14 requiring him and other executives of LWUA to answer Purisima’s allegation that their move to buy out the troubled Express Savings Bank Inc. resulted to P480 million in losses for the government.

Pichay said he and other LWUA officials would not be able to get an impartial treatment since the IAD-ODESLA and Purisima are both alter egos of President Aquino.

The SC earlier declared unconstitutional EO 1 creating the Truth Commission for violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Three other executive orders were also challenged before the SC: EO 2 on the recall, withdrawal and revocation of so-called midnight appointments of Arroyo; EO 3 which revoked an executive order of Arroyo that automatically promoted lawyers in government executive service to the rank of Career Executive Service Officer III (CESO III); and EO 7 which suspended all allowances, bonuses and incentives of officials of government-owned and controlled corporations and government financial institutions.

The SC has yet to rule on these three cases.