Post on 29-May-2018
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
1/23
Page 1 of23
ORAL ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION ING.R. NO. 193036 (REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, ET. AL. VS.EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO M. OCHOA, JR. AND
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET SECRETARY FLORENCIO T. ABAD).
[PRESENTED BY PETITIONER REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN]
I.EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1 SUFFERS FROM
CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITIES WHICH WARRANTTHE INVALIDATION OF THE PHILIPPINE
TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010
1.A. EXECUTIVE ORDERNO. 1 CREATING THEPHILIPPINE TRUTHCOMMISSION OF 2010
VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLEOF SEPARATION OFPOWERS BY USURPINGTHE POWERS OF THECONGRESS (1) TOCREATE PUBLICOFFICES, AGENCIES ANDCOMMISSIONS; AND(2) TO APPROPRIATE
PUBLIC FUNDS.
1. One of the enduring hallmarks of the presidential system in
a republican democracy is the principle of separation of powers.
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
2/23
Page 2 of23
2. Separation of powers as a model for governance of
democratic states traces its ancestry to ancient Greece and the
Roman Republic.
3. The term separation of powers is attributed to Baron de
Montesquieu, a French Enlightenment political philosopher.
4. According to Thomas Jefferson, The first principle of a
good government is certainly a distribution of its powers into
executive, judiciary and legislative, lodging each with a distinct
magistracy.
5. Caution is made that Let that clear line of distinction and
responsibility be blurred, and liberty and the peoples interest are
alike in jeopardy.
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
3/23
Page 3 of23
6. The doctrine of separation adopts the notion that the
powers of government consists largely in making laws, executing
laws and applying them to particular cases through the rule of law.
7. The principle of separation of powers is well entrenched in
our constitutional history. The present 1987 Constitution provides
that legislative power shall be vested in the Congress; the
executive power shall be vested in the President of the
Philippines.; and the judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by
law.
8. The separation of powers between the Executive and the
Legislative Departments is well explained by the Honorable
Supreme Court in the case of Ople vs. Torres (293 SCRA 141).
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
4/23
Page 4 of23
9. Inherent in the congressional power to enact laws is the
legislative authority to create public offices, agencies, and
commissions. Verily, the Congress may create or abolish offices
except those created by the Constitution itself. This plenary
legislative prerogative has been consistently upheld by the
Honorable Supreme Court, like in the cases of Secretary of the
Department of Transportation and Communications vs. Mabalot
(378 SCRA 128) and Alba vs. Evangelista (100 Phil. Reports 683).
10. The Office of the President arrogated the power of the
Congress to create a public office when it issued Executive Order
No. 1 creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010.
11. Executive Order No. 1 which was issued on 30 July 2010
infringed upon and violated the sanctity of separation of powers.
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
5/23
Page 5 of23
12. This power to create public offices is not shared by the
Constitution and by the Congress with the President of the
Republic, except in a very limited and circumscribed delegated
authority as provided for in the Administrative Code of 1987, and
this delimited delegation is with respect to the continuing structural
reorganization of the Office of the President which is granted tox
the President by authority of law.
13. The Office of the President anchored the establishment of
the Truth Commission on the Presidents continuing authority to
reorganize the Office of the President pursuant to the
Administrative Code of 1987.
14. This limited delegation of authority is circumscribed by the
following standards prescribed by law:
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
6/23
Page 6 of23
(a) The power is limited to the reorganization ofexistingagenciesandoffices;
(b) The reorganization must pertain only to theadministrativestructureofthe Officeofthe President;
(c) The reorganization may entail (i)restructuringoftheinternalorganizationof the Office of the President;(ii)
transferoffunctions; and(iii)transferofagencies; and
(d) The reorganization is to achieve simplicity,economyandefficiency.
15. The creation of the Truth Commission defies all the
foregoing standards imposed by the Administrative Code of 1987
because:
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
7/23
Page 7 of23
(a) The Truth Commission is a new creation andnottheresultofastructuralreorganization. Before the
advent of Executive Order No. 1, the Truth Commission was
hithertononexistent;
(b) The Truth Commission is not a restructuring,transferoffunctionsortransferofagencies; and
(c) The Truth Commission does not achievesimplicity, economyandefficiency in the operation of the
Office of the President. In fact, itduplicatesandsupplants
the functions and powers of the Ombudsman and the
Department of Justice even as its budget lacks transparency
and limit.
16. It must be underscored that this Honorable Court in the
very recent case ofBanda, et. al. vs. Ermita (G.R. No. 166620,
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
8/23
Page 8 of23
April 20, 2010, citing Domingo vs. Zamora [397 SCRA 56]), ruled
that the rationale of the Presidents continuing authority to effect
structural reorganization of the Office of the President is in
recognition of the recurring need of every President to
reorganizehis orher officeto achieve simplicity, economy
andefficiency.
17. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of
Executive Order No. 378 because it merely effected the
reorganization of the National Printing Office consistent with the
legislative delegation under the Administrative Code of 1987
granting continuing authority of the President to reorganize his
Office.
18. Moreover, in Dario vs. Mison (176 SCRA 84), the
Honorable Supreme Court ruled that reorganizations are valid
provided they are pursued in good faith. Reasoning a contrario, if a
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
9/23
Page 9 of23
reorganization or the creation of an office is made in bad faith like
pursuing a vengeful hostility against the previous administration
and selectively targeting its officers for investigation and
prosecution, then with more reason such creation is fatally infirm.
19. One of the most guarded powers of the Congress,
particularly of the House of Representatives where appropriations
bills originate, is the constitutionally mandated power to
appropriate public funds. Thus, the Constitution provides:
No money shall be paid out of the Treasury exceptin pursuance of an appropriation made by law. (Section29[1], Article VI).
20. The Honorable Supreme Court in Philippine Constitution
Association vs. Enriquez (235 SCRA 506) ruled:
Under the Constitution, the spending powercalled by James Madison as the power of the
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
10/23
Page 10 of23
purse belongs to Congress, subject only to theveto power of the President. The President maypropose the budget but still the final say on thematter of appropriations is lodged to Congress.
21. In Bengzon vs. Secretary of Justice and Insular Auditor (62
Phil Reports 912), the Honorable Supreme Court defined
appropriation as setting apart by law ofacertainsum from the
public revenue for a specified purpose. (Emphasis supplied).
22. This plenary power of the Congress was usurped by the
Office of the President when it issued the assailed Executive Order
No. 1 wherein the President allocated an undetermined budget for
the Truth Commission in this wise:
Sec 11. Budget for the Commission. The
Office of the President shall provide thenecessary funds for the Commission to ensurethat it can exercise its powers, execute itsfunctions, and perform its duties andresponsibilities as effectively, efficiently, andexpeditiously as possible.
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
11/23
Page 11 of23
23. Aside from illegally seizing the power of the legislature to
appropriate public funds, the Office of the President violated a
cardinal tenet that a budget must be a certain or specific amount.
The appropriation language of Section 17 lacks particularity and
transparency because no specific amount is appropriated, no ceiling
is provided and no definitive funding source is identified.
1.B. EXECUTIVE ORDERNO. 1 VIOLATES THEEQUAL PROTECTIONC L A U S E O F THE1987 CONSTITUTIONBECAUSE IT LIMITSTHE JURISDICTION OFTHE PHILIPPINETRUTH COMMISSIONTO OFFICIALS ANDEMPLOYEES OF THE
PREVIOUSADMINISTRATION(THE ADMINISTRATIONOF FORMER PRESIDENTGLORIA MACAPAGAL
ARROYO).
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
12/23
Page 12 of23
24. The 1987 Constitution guarantees every person equal
protection of the laws under Section 1 of Article III which provides:
x x x nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.
25. If eliminating graft and corruption is the noble motive in
the creation of the Truth Commission as evinced in the whereas
clauses of Executive Order No. 1, then equal protection demands
that all persons who belong to the same class of suspected or
alleged perpetrators of graft and corruption must fall under the
jurisdiction of the Truth Commission without regard to
personalities and regimes. All those belonging to this class must be
exposed to the same rigors and processes, the same hostility and
persecution.
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
13/23
Page 13 of23
26. There is no substantial distinction of graft reportedly
committed under the Arroyo administration and graft committed
under other administrations to warrant the creation of a Truth
Commission to exclusively investigate for prosecution officials and
employees of the Arroyo administration.
27. Equal protection safeguards all persons against any form
of hostility from the government as succinctly explained by the
Honorable Supreme Court in Philippine Judges Association vs.
Prado (227 SCRA 703).
28. Executive Order No. 1 wantonly violates the equal
protection clause when it deliberately vested the Truth
Commission with jurisdiction and authority to solely target officials
and employees of the Arroyo administration.
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
14/23
Page 14 of23
29. These errant selective search for the truth and flawed
pursuit of justice is patently discriminatory.
30. Equal protection requires that all persons or things
similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
conferred and responsibilities imposed (Quinto vs. Comelec, G.R.
No. 189698, December 1, 2009). Similar subjects should not be
treated differently, so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly
discriminate against others (City of Manila vs. Lagio, Jr., 455 SCRA
309).
31. In order not to violate the equal protection clause, a
classification must be reasonable and is deemed reasonable where:
(1) it is based on substantial distinction which make real
differences; (2) these distinctions or differences are germane to the
purpose of the law; (3) the classification applies not only to present
conditions but also to future conditions which are substantially
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
15/23
Page 15 of23
identical to those of the present; and (4) the classification applies
only to those who belong to the same class (City of Manila vs.
Lagio, Jr., supra).
32. Executive Order No. 1 defies all of the foregoing
standards:
(a) There is definitely no substantial distinction between thegroup of officials and employees of the Arroyo
administration and other groups or persons who abused
their public office for personal gain under other
administrations. Executive Order No. 1 singles out for
investigation and eventual prosecution solely those
connected with the Arroyo administration as if graft was
unique to them and corruption was their species.
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
16/23
Page 16 of23
(b) Classifying officials and employees of the Arroyoadministration as a distinct category is not germane to the
purpose of the executive issuance because stamping out
graft and corruption must ensnare all possible respondents
from all administrations past, present and eventually
future regimes.
(c) The classification does not even refer to presentconditions, much more to future conditions, with specific
relevance to the commission of graft and corruption, as it is
limited to a particular past administration, not even to all
past administrations.
(d) The classification does not apply to all of those belongingto the same class because graft and grafters prior and
subsequent to the Arroyo administration do not come under
the purview of the jurisdiction of the Truth Commission.
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
17/23
Page 17 of23
33. The search for truth is universal, not parochial. It must be
timeless like eternity and limitless like the horizons. If truth is to be
achieved, justice served and corruption eradicated, then the Truth
Commission is an aberration. In the language of the Honorable
Supreme Court, it is like an outlaw which must be slain at sight.
1.C. EXECUTIVE ORDERNO. 1 SUPPLANTSTHE CONSTITUTIONALLYMANDATED POWERSOF THE OFFICE OF THEOMBUDSMAN ASPROVIDED IN THE1987 CONSTITUTION
AND SUPPLEMENTEDBY REPUBLIC ACT NO.6770 OR THE
OMBUDSMAN ACT OF1989.
34. The Office of the Ombudsman as the countrys graft
buster was created by the 1987 Constitution under Section 5 of
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
18/23
Page 18 of23
Article XI which provides for the following powers, functions, and
duties:
(1) Investigate on its own, or oncomplaint by any person, any act or omission ofany public official, employee, office or agency,when such act or omission appears to be illegal,unjust, improper, or inefficient.
xxx xxx xxx
(5) Request any government agency forassistance and information necessary in thedischarge of its responsibilities, and to examine,if necessary, pertinent records and documents.
xxx xxx xxx
(7) Determine the causes of inefficiency,red tape, mismanagement, fraud, andcorruption in the Government and makerecommendations for their elimination and theobservance of high standards of ethics andefficiency.
35. In his sponsorship remarks in the Constitutional
Commission, Commissioner Nolledo said:
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
19/23
Page 19 of23
x x x the creation of an Ombudsman x x x is inanswer to the crying need of our people for anhonest and responsive government. The office ofthe Ombudsman x x x is really an institutionprimarily for the citizen as against the malpracticesand corruption in government.
36. The Explanatory Note of House Bill No. 13646, which was
eventually enacted as the Ombudsman Act of 1989 reads: Article
XI of the 1987 Constitution creates the independent Office of the
Ombudsman as the guardian of public accountability and the public
trust. To ensure success of the Ombudsman, this bill is proposed.
37. The Constitution and RA No. 6770 vested quasi-judicial
powers to the Office of the Ombudsman.
38. The improvident creation of the Truth Commission has
duplicated and supplanted the constitutional mandate of the Office
of the Ombudsman to investigate complaints or reported cases of
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
20/23
Page 20 of23
graft and corruption with respect to alleged misdeeds of the
previous Administration.
39. Likewise, the statutory power of the Office of the
Ombudsman under RA 6770 to initiate the prosecution of graft and
corruption cases has also been usurped by the Truth Commission.
40. The late President Corazon Aquino upon signing the
Ombudsman Act of 1989 said: I have always been unrelenting in
the campaign against graft and corruption and supportive of
measures to minimize, if not eradicate, graft and corrupt practices.
She added: By my signature, I hereby take this opportunity to
affirm anew my vow against graft and corruption.
41. There is no mistaking therefore that the Office of the
Ombudsman is the constitutionally and statutorily authorized quasi-
judicial body to investigate and prosecute cases of graft and
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
21/23
Page 21 of23
corruption. Executive Order No. 1 has allowed the Truth
Commission to usurp the powers of the Office of the Ombudsman
in clear violation of the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770. The
investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman have
been derogated and invaded by the Philippine Truth Commission of
2010 in complete disregard of the constitutional independence of
the Ombudsman.
II. THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THERELIEFS PRAYED FORBECAUSE THEIMPLEMENTATION OFEXECUTIVE ORDER NO.1 AND THE CREATIONOF THE PHILIPPINETRUTH COMMISSIONOF 2010 WILL RESULTTO (1) GRAVE INJUSTICE
AND IRREPARABLEINJURY TO PETITIONERS;AND (2) VIOLATION OFTHE RIGHTS OFPETITIONERS ASMEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
22/23
Page 22 of23
42. The Honorable Supreme Court in Province of North
Cotobato vs. the Government of the Republic of the Philippines
Peace Panel of Ancestral Domain (GRT), G.R. 183591, October 14,
2008, citing Del Mar vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming
Corporation, 400 Phil. 307, and Philippine Constitution Association,
Inc. vs. Mathay et.al., 124 Phil. 890, ruled that in the case of a
legislator or Member of Congress, an act of the Executive that
injures the institution of Congress causes a derivative but
nonetheless substantial injury that can be questioned by legislators.
A member of the House of Representatives has a standing to
maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by
the Constitution in his office.
43. In Senate of the Philippine vs. Ermita (488 SCRA 1), the
Honorable Supreme Court reiterated that Indeed, legislators have
standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers and
privileges vested by the Constitution in their office and are allowed
8/8/2019 Oral Arguments Abridged
23/23
Page 23 of 23
to sue the validity of any official action which they claim infringes
their prerogatives as legislators.
44. Verily, the usurpation by Executive Order No. 1 creating
the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 of the powers of Congress
to create public offices and appropriate funds inflicts irreparable
injury on the Congress of the Philippines resulting to a derivative
irremediable and substantial damage on the petitioners as Members
of the House of Representatives.
45. Moreover, the violation of the equal protection of the laws
clause and the supplanting of the quasi-judicial powers of the
Ombusdman as vested by the Constitution and by RA 6770 further
violate the rights of petitioners as legislators who are sworn to
uphold the law.