Office of Minority Leader Edcel C. Lagman
31 July 2010
0918-9120137 / 0916-6406737

The Minority in the House of Representatives is seriously considering challenging before the judicial forum the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1 of President Benigno Aquino III creating the Truth Commission of 2010.

Minority Leader and Albay Representative Edcel C. Lagman stressed that “the projected court action is not to shield officials of the previous administration who can be indicted and tried before existing prosecutorial and judicial bodies.”

He explained that “the sole purpose of the judicial recourse is to uphold the sanctity of the Constitution on separation of powers and maintain the rule of law.”

Lagman added that the establishment of the Truth Commission may be constitutionally infirm for the following reasons:

1.    The creation and funding of offices and commissions is a legislative power of Congress and consequently, the Truth Commission cannot be constituted by mere executive fiat;

2.    The equal protection clause of the Constitution may be violated by targeting a specific group of officials for investigation; and

3.    The Truth Commission duplicates the constitutional mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman as well as the statutory jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, the Sandiganbayan and the regular courts.

He also underscored that all previous commissions of consequence like the Agrava Board or Commission under the late President Ferdinand Marcos as well as the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and the Committee (Commission) on Human Rights under the late President Corazon Aquino were created by legislative authorization.

“It will be recalled that both former Presidents exercised legislative power under martial law and the revolutionary government, respectively, while President Aquino III exercises only executive powers,” Lagman said.

He clarified that because the President does not have the funding authority which is reserved to the Congress, the appropriation language of Section 11 of EO No. 1 lacks particularity and transparency because no specific amount is appropriated, except by a nebulous statement that the “Office of the President shall provide the necessary funds for the Commission” without identifying a definitive funding source.

Lagman observed that while the presidency has repeatedly announced that it wants speedy “closure” on the misdeeds of the previous administration, it authorized the Truth Commission to consume virtually 29 months from its creation or up to 31 December 2012 to “accomplish its mission.”

“This inordinately long duration granted to the Commission to terminate its investigation gives rise to apprehensions that the Truth Commission will be used as a launching pad for trial and conviction by publicity of expected respondents,” he added.