Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2.1 The president has the authority to create the Truth Commission
2.2 The PTC will not erode the powers or independence of the Ombudsman
2.3 The purpose of the PTC offends the equal protection clause
The PTC will not erode the powers or independence of the Ombudsman [edit]
The Court also held that the investigative function of the commission will not supplant nor threaten
the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman. If at all, it will complement the functions of the
Ombudsman and the Department of Justice. As correctly pointed out by the OSG, the function of the
PTC is merely to recommend prosecution, which is just a consequence of its fact-finding
investigation. The actual prosecution of suspected offenders, much less adjudication on the merits of
the charges against them, is certainly not a function given to the PTC.
The purpose of the PTC offends the equal protection clause [edit]
While the Court was almost unanimous in holding that the president indeed had the authority to
create the PTC and that it would not unduly duplicate the powers of the Ombudsman, nine (9) of the
justices joinedAssociate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza in refusing to uphold the constitutionality of
E.O. 1 in view of its apparent transgression of the equal protection clause enshrined in sec. 1, Art. III
of the Constitution. Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio was joined by four (4) others in their
strong dissent.
Laying down a long line of precedents, the ponencia reiterated that equal protection simply requires
that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed. The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person
against intentional and arbitrary discrimination. Applying this precept, the majority held that E.O. 1
should be struck down as violative of the equal protection clause.
The Decision stressed that the clear mandate of the PTC is to investigate and find out the truth
concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration only. The
intent to single out the previous administration is plain, patent and manifest. Mention of it has been
made in at least three portions of the questioned executive order. The Arroyo administration,
according to the ponencia, is just a member of a class, that is, a class of past administrations. It is
not a class of its own. Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness
which the equal protection clause cannot sanction. Such discriminating differentiation gave the
majority an impression that the PTC is just being used as a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective
retribution and that E.O. 1 is only an adventure in partisan hostility.
While the Court recognized that the creation of the PTC was inspired with noble intentions, the
ponencia nonetheless reminded the government of the ethical principle that the end does not justify
the means. It emphatically closed by stressing that the search for the truth must be within
constitutional bounds, for ours is still a government of laws and not of men.