Remembering the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010
Executive Order No. 1, which created the Philippine Truth Commission, was the first order of business of the late President Benigno C. Aquino’s administration. The EO stressed that a public office is a public trust and that public officers and employees, who are servants of the people, must at all times be accountable to the latter, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
EO No. 1 condemns corruption as among the most despicable acts of defiance of this principle and notorious violation of this mandate; an evil and scourge that seriously affects the political, economic, and social life of a nation; in a very special way, it inflicts untold misfortune and misery on the poor, the marginalized and underprivileged sector of society. Corruption in the Philippines has reached very alarming levels and undermined the people’s trust and confidence in the Government and its institutions.
Although corruption is admittedly all around us both in public and private sectors, and has plagued every administration past and present, it is interesting to note that the creation of the Philippine Truth Commission was aimed at primarily investigating the reports of graft and corruption of such scale and magnitude that shock and offend the moral and ethical sensibilities during the tenure of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
The intentions of EO No. 1 are noble. A triumph against corruption is the triumph of all the Filipino people. But EO No. 1 suffers from an incurable defect that did not escape the meticulous review of the Supreme Court. It chose to limit the scope of the intended investigation to the previous administration only, excluding other past administrations.
Quoting the language of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court declared EO No. 1 as unconstitutional ratiocinating that “though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if applied and administered by a public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the constitution.”
The high tribunal said that to exclude the earlier administrations in the guise of “substantial distinctions” would only confirm the petitioners’ lament that the subject executive order is only an “adventure in partisan hostility.”
Many new leaders follow the template of EO No. 1 to jumpstart an administration catapulted to power by digging into the sins of the past. But good intentions applied with an evil eye and an unequal hand are as abominable as the evil sought to be avoided.