Lagman issued the statement after Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Eduardo de Mesa said President Aquino could amend or issue another executive order that would expand the scope of the Truth Commission – even to include the anomalies during the time of Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo, the country’s first president, in the late 1890s.

Lagman said the EO “was afflicted with other constitutional infirmities in addition to its having violated the equal protection clause.”

The SC last week rejected EO No. 1 for violating the Constitution’s equal protection clause for singling out the administration of former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo upon the petition filed by Lagman.

“Consequently, even if the President amends EO No. 1 to cover the investigation of prior administrations, its fatal constitutional infirmities will still persist,” Lagman maintained.

Five justices who wrote separate concurring opinions ruled that Aquino breached the doctrine of separation of powers when he arrogated the sole prerogative of the Congress to create public offices like the commission, Lagman said.

The justices, including those who dissented, agreed the Truth Commission as created by EO No. 1 constitutes a public office, he said.

Chief Justice Renato Corona and Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta and Lucas Bersamin all said President Aquino exceeded his delegated authority to reorganize offices in the executive department because the commission is an entirely new office, not a result of a reorganization.

Moreover, its establishment does not comply with standards of “simplicity, economy and efficiency” as provided for in the Administrative Code of 1987 because it duplicates the functions of existing agencies like the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman.

The concurring justices found that the Truth Commission was vested with quasi-judicial functions like ascertaining probable cause in criminal complaints, which only Congress can authorize, he said.

“The aforenamed five justices also joined Associate Justice Jose Perez in declaring that the commission duplicated and usurped the constitutional mandate of the Ombudsman of exercising primary jurisdiction in the investigation of graft cases and there is no law authorizing the President to vest the commission with the power to investigate public officials and private citizens who are not part of the Executive Department,” Lagman said.

Cagayan Rep. Jack Enrile, for his part, urged Malacañang to “take it slow on its move and revisit first the very essence” as to why and how they wanted the Truth Commission to exist and function.

“The Truth Commission must not be about vendetta,” Enrile said.

“It should be the people’s mechanism to hear all sides, to clearly see facts behind the allegations, and close old books of disagreements so we could all move on and focus on other matters of national interest. This is only our first step to make our officials accountable,” he said.

Enrile said he was saddened with the SC decision against EO 1.

“But looking deeper into the details, the Supreme Court has a valid point that Malacañang should highly consider. Instead of just nagging around and start finger-pointing again, they should get back to the table and have it strengthened if not look for other possible legal remedies,” he said.

Enrile added Malacañang should not be complacent in simply forming the said Commission just to comply with its anti-corruption promises during the campaign.

He suggested better inter-department coordination, planning and management to curb corruption and raise accountability among public servants.

Paolo Romero, Philippine Star