• Office of Minority Leader Edcel C. Lagman
• 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
• 27 July 2011

              Minority Leader and Albay Representative Edcel C. Lagman lauded the Supreme Court for once again upholding the supremacy of the Constitution and the ascendancy of the rule of law in junking with finality the Philippine Truth Commission as a constitutional aberration.

              The Truth Commission was created by Executive Order No. 1 issued by President Aquino on 30 July 2010.

              Lagman added that the “final decision of the Supreme Court is a virtual sanction against the President who was found to have been motivated by partisan vengeance and selective retribution in solely targeting for prosecution his immediate predecessor.”

               According to Lagman, the “Aquino administration self-derailed its ballyhooed agenda against corruption for one year by foisting an unconstitutional body and insisting on its contrived validity before the public and Supreme Court.”

              Lagman challenged the constitutionality of E.O. No. 1 as a patent violation of the equal protection clause for selectively investigating officials of the Aquino administration and as an arrogation of the legislative power to create public office.

              Lagman has also contested the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 10153 postponing the ARMM elections and authorizing the President to appoint officers-in-charge for being violative of Muslim autonomy and Republic Act No. 10149 or the GOCC Governance Act of 2011 for violating the security of tenure of Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCC) officials and creating the “Governance Commission for Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations” (GCG) as a super executive body with powers to unilaterally repeal, with the imprimatur of the President, original charters granted to the GOCCs by Congress.

               The petition assailing Republic Act No. 10153 has been set by the Supreme Court for oral argument on August 9, 2011, thus effectively granting due course to the petition.

• Office of Minority Leader Edcel C. Lagman
• 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
• Official Website: http://www.edcellagman.com.ph
• 21 July 2011

        I did not solicit, ask or demand any cash or check from the PCSO or any operator in connection with the Small Town Lottery (STL) operation in the First District of Albay.

         I recall having received in 2008 or 2009 a check or not more than two checks of small amounts purportedly pursuant to PCSO Board Resolution No. 323, Series of 2008, granting 2.5% of Charity Fund (30% of net sales) to Congressional Districts.

         I have not encashed the check and I do not recall having deposited it.

LAGMAN: GOCC GOVERNANCE

ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

           Minority Leader and Albay Representative Edcel C. Lagman has challenged yet another pet measure of the Aquino administration when he filed on Thursday a petition asking the Supreme Court to invalidate as unconstitutional R.A. No. 10149 or the “GOCC Governance Act of 2011”.

             While admitting that scandalously huge salaries, allowances and perks of some Government Owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs) should not be tolerated and must be rectified, Lagman said that “a wrong cannot be righted by another wrong.”

            Lagman asserted that the assailed law is a “compendium of sweeping, wayward, illegal and unconstitutional solutions to a problem which is grave but not widespread.” It is “indiscriminate wrath against the entire GOCC sector”, he added.

           The Bicol solon told the Supreme Court in his petition for certiorari and prohibition that the infirm statute is “a shortcut and an ill-conceived remedy which punishes both the guilty and the innocent without due process, violates the security of tenure of civil servants, provides for undue delegation and utter abdication of legislative powers; and supplants the jurisdiction of the constitutionally created Civil Service Commission.”

The petition also asked that respondent Executive Secretary Pacquito N. Ochoa, Jr. be enjoined from enforcing the controverted law and respondent Budget Secretary Florencio B. Abad restrained from releasing funds to support the implementation of the law.

             Lagman cited the following constitutional infirmities afflicting the challenged statute:

             1.  R.A. No. 10149 violates the constitutionally guaranteed security of tenure of officials, trustees and directors of GOCCs with original charters or those created under special law when it pre-terminated the terms of office of incumbents as of June 30, 2011 without due process.

            2. The grant of principal functions and powers to the “Governance Commission for Government-Owned or Controlled Corporations” (GCG) constitutes undue delegation of legislative powers like amending or modifying GOCCs’ original charters enacted by the Congress as well as recommending their abolition or privatization with the sole approval of the President and without the requisite legislation.

           3. The grant of awesome powers to the GCG constitutes an abdication of legislative authority which is violative of the constitution.

           4. The creation of the GCG duplicates and supplants the constitutional authority and jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.

           Lagman also said that the enactment of the challenged statute was fast-tracked in order to create vacancies in the helm and governing boards of GOCCs to accommodate partisans of the Aquino administration who are seeking government jobs after the employment ban on election losers had elapsed last May.

           Lawyers Johween O. Atienza and Tristan Frederick L. Tresvalles assisted Lagman in filing the petition which was docketed as G.R. No. 197422.

• Office of Minority Leader Edcel C. Lagman
• 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
• 14 July 2011

        The contrite demeanor of the concerned bishops, capped by an irrevocable offer to return the controversial vehicles, mollified the Senators and the prelates got away with nary a parking ticket.

         In a country where more than 80% are Roman Catholic, it is not surprising that the Church of the majority gets equities.

         The following relevant facts and issues have conveniently been overlooked in the top billed “senatorial inquisition”:

         1) The Catholic Church is admittedly rich and can well-afford to finance its charity works without getting financial assistance from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) whose exclusive beneficiaries are the poor and marginalized;

         2) The solicitation or acceptance of PCSO donations by Bishops is hypocritical because the Church is supposed to be against any and all forms of gambling, while the funds of the PCSO come from gambling operations, albeit legalized;

         3) The constitutional injunction against the appropriation, payment or application, directly or indirectly, of public money or property “for the use, benefit or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary” is not lifted or excused just because the government assistance is to promote the Church’s or minister’s charity activities.

         The ban does not look at the purpose of the assistance or donation but is concerned as to whether the aid would benefit, directly or indirectly, the religious recipient.

         Funding the charity efforts of the Catholic Church benefits the Church because it enhances its reputation as the “benefactor of the poor”, in the same manner that when a politician assists in relief operations his image or advocacy is projected.

         4) The ban allows a limited and specific exception when the appropriation or property outlaid or donated is for a priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary “who is assigned to the armed forces or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.”  Since the subject bishops do not fall under the exception, they are necessarily included in the prohibition of the general rule.

         Unfortunately, there is no implementing statute imposing sanctions for violations of the doctrine of separation of the Church and the State.