DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert
any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate
an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned
to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the
Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which
that instrument secures and guarantees to them.
The role of the Constitution cannot be overlooked. It is through the Constitution that
the fundamental powers of government are established, limited and defined, and by
which these powers are distributed among the several departments.[2] The
Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and
to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer.[3]
Constitutional doctrines must remain steadfast no matter what may be the tides of
time. It cannot be simply made to sway and accommodate the call of situations and
much more tailor itself to the whims and caprices of government and the people who
run it.[4]
For consideration before the Court are two consolidated cases[5] both of which
essentially assail the validity and constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1, dated
July 30, 2010, entitled “Creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010.”
The first case is G.R. No. 192935, a special civil action for prohibition instituted by
petitioner Louis Biraogo (Biraogo) in his capacity as a citizen and taxpayer. Biraogo
assails Executive Order No. 1 for being violative of the legislative power of Congress
under Section 1, Article VI of the Constitution[6] as it usurps the constitutional
authority of the legislature to create a public office and to appropriate funds therefor.
[7]
The second case, G.R. No. 193036, is a special civil action for certiorari and
prohibition filed by petitioners Edcel C. Lagman, Rodolfo B. Albano Jr., Simeon A.
Datumanong, and Orlando B. Fua, Sr. (petitioners-legislators) as incumbent
members of the House of Representatives.
The genesis of the foregoing cases can be traced to the events prior to the historic
May 2010 elections, when then Senator Benigno Simeon Aquino III declared his
staunch condemnation of graft and corruption with his slogan, “Kung walang corrupt,
walang mahirap.” The Filipino people, convinced of his sincerity and of his ability to
carry out this noble objective, catapulted the good senator to the presidency.
To transform his campaign slogan into reality, President Aquino found a need for a
special body to investigate reported cases of graft and corruption allegedly
committed during the previous administration.
Thus, at the dawn of his administration, the President on July 30, 2010, signed
Executive Order No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (Truth
Commission). Pertinent provisions of said executive order read:
In particular, it shall:
By the President:
To accomplish its task, the PTC shall have all the powers of an investigative body
under Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987. It is not,
however, a quasi-judicial body as it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle, or
render awards in disputes between contending parties. All it can do is gather, collect
and assess evidence of graft and corruption and make recommendations. It may
have subpoena powers but it has no power to cite people in contempt, much less
order their arrest. Although it is a fact-finding body, it cannot determine from such
facts if probable cause exists as to warrant the filing of an information in our courts of
law. Needless to state, it cannot impose criminal, civil or administrative penalties or
sanctions.
The PTC is different from the truth commissions in other countries which have been
created as official, transitory and non-judicial fact-finding bodies “to establish the
facts and context of serious violations of human rights or of international
humanitarian law in a country’s past.”[9] They are usually established by states
emerging from periods of internal unrest, civil strife or authoritarianism to serve as
mechanisms for transitional justice.
Truth commissions have been described as bodies that share the following
characteristics: (1) they examine only past events; (2) they investigate patterns of
abuse committed over a period of time, as opposed to a particular event; (3) they are
temporary bodies that finish their work with the submission of a report containing
conclusions and recommendations; and (4) they are officially sanctioned, authorized
or empowered by the State.[10] “Commission’s members are usually empowered to
conduct research, support victims, and propose policy recommendations to prevent
recurrence of crimes. Through their investigations, the commissions may aim to
discover and learn more about past abuses, or formally acknowledge them. They
may aim to prepare the way for prosecutions and recommend institutional
reforms.”[11]
Thus, their main goals range from retribution to reconciliation. The Nuremburg and
Tokyo war crime tribunals are examples of a retributory or vindicatory body set up to
try and punish those responsible for crimes against humanity. A form of a
reconciliatory tribunal is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa,
the principal function of which was to heal the wounds of past violence and to
prevent future conflict by providing a cathartic experience for victims.
The PTC is a far cry from South Africa’s model. The latter placed more emphasis on
reconciliation than on judicial retribution, while the marching order of the PTC is the
identification and punishment of perpetrators. As one writer [12] puts it:
The order ruled out reconciliation. It translated the Draconian code
spelled out by Aquino in his inaugural speech: “To those who talk about
reconciliation, if they mean that they would like us to simply forget about the
wrongs that they have committed in the past, we have this to say: There can
be no reconciliation without justice. When we allow crimes to go unpunished,
we give consent to their occurring over and over again.”
Barely a month after the issuance of Executive Order No. 1, the petitioners asked the
Court to declare it unconstitutional and to enjoin the PTC from performing its
functions. A perusal of the arguments of the petitioners in both cases shows that
they are essentially the same. The petitioners-legislators summarized them in the
following manner: