Slow but sure

Decisions of our courts of law may not be acceptable to, or may not be correct from the point of view of, the greater majority of the people. But in a government under the rule of law, only the courts of justice have the authority to decide legal issues or resolve legal disputes. Hence there is no use going to the media and swaying public opinion against any court decision like the recent Supreme Court (SC) decision declaring as unconstitutional E.O. No.1 creating the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC). The right or correct side here is not determined by the trust ratings at the polls or by good intentions such as seeking the “truth”.

Undoubtedly PNoy still has a high trust rating. He has indeed the overwhelming support of the people in his quest for the truth regarding the various anomalies committed during the nine years of the Arroyo administration. To be sure, he won massively in the last elections riding on the crest of his promise to dig deep and expose the many shady deals of the past regime. In carrying out the peoples’ mandate and fulfilling his promise, PNoy should not however depend too much, or solely, on the popularity of his move or the righteousness of his intentions. He must be aware that he has to work with other branches of government in achieving his goals, and convince them that his means of hitting his target is within the bounds of the law.

He should not antagonize the very institution charged with determining whether his means are within legal bounds. He should tell his staff and appeal to people in media to refrain from offending and slighting the Judiciary which is just performing its function of setting the legal parameters in his search for truth behind the alleged scams committed by the past administration. He cannot achieve his goal by his current antagonistic stance.

It is really regrettable and dismaying that the controversy about the PTC has degenerated into character assassination and personal criticism. Those on the side of PNoy arrogantly and blatantly claim that the ten Justices who declared the E.O. unconstitutional are biased in favor of ex-President Gloria Arroyo because they all owe their appointments to her. The other side, on the other hand, claim that PNoy’s staff of legal advisers are “lightweights” and lack the necessary legal savvy to ensure that PNoy’s moves are legally unquestionable.

The SC shot down E.O. 1 allegedly because it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. As early as 1908, this principle has already been explained in the case of U.S. vs. Ling Siu Fan (10 Phil. 104). Said case ruled that a law must be “applicable alike to all citizens of a State or to all of a class”. So following this SC ruling, classification does not violate the equal protection clause as long as such classification is reasonable. In the 1939 case of People vs. Cayat, the SC declared that a classification is reasonable if it (1) rests on substantial distinctions; (2) is germane or closely related to the purpose of the law; (3) is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) applies equally to all members of the same class.

E.O. 1 undoubtedly makes a classification because it “singles out for investigation the reports of graft and corruption in the previous administration” only. Said E.O. picked out the past administration as a class by itself when it comes to the commission of graft and corruption in government. So the issue that confronted the SC was whether such classification would pass the test of “reasonableness” set forth in the case of People vs. Cayat (Supra). In other words: Is singling out the past administration for graft and corruption based on substantial distinctions? Is it related to the purpose of the E.O.? Is it not limited to existing conditions only? And does it apply to all members of the same class? If the answers to all these questions are “yes”, then the EO is valid. I leave it up to up to you, dear readers, to answer them and make your own conclusion on whether the SC is correct in ruling that the EO’s classification failed the test. Your answers are as good as mine. But at the end of the day, the SC ruling is still controlling.

The ruling would have stood on more solid legal ground if it was founded on the Constitutional principle that power to create an Agency like the Truth Commission is a legislative and not an Executive power. As Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago said, “this is a case of whether President Aquino has power to create an agency without prior law by Congress authorizing him to do so”.

Indeed, the PNoy’s search for truth would have been legally smoother if he just called on his allies in Congress to enact the necessary law creating the Truth Commission. Such creation of Congress would be a more powerful and effective fact finding body with powers vested by law itself and not by a mere EO. It is erroneous to liken this E.O. 1 with another E.O.1 issued by PNoy’s mother Cory in 1986 creating the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). Said EO was issued by then President Cory in the exercise of her legislative power under a revolutionary government put in place after the EDSA people power. PNoy has no such power under the present Constitution. There is no ground for comparison.

Hopefully PNoy accepts this setback as another important and timely lesson. It is better to be slow but sure because “Ang tumatakbo ng matulin kung matinik malalim”.

Email us at [email protected]