By Miriam Defensor-Santiago
(Editors' note: This forms part of the transcript of an interview with reporters on 2 August 2010.)
What should we do with the Truth Commission in the light of the criticisms that have been aired against it, particularly by members of my bloc in the Senate including myself?
The obvious answer is that the administration should have the humility to ask Congress by means of a certification of urgent necessity. In other words, the President should certify as urgent a bill to create the Truth Commission because as it stands now it is plainly unconstitutional, and the efforts to explain its constitutionality is very sophomoric--in other words, it is a bunch of amateurs trying to justify what they are doing.
The first basic principle is this: Government is divided into three separate branches, and each branch cannot delegate the powers given to it by the Constitution. So the function of the legislature is not only the right of the legislature, it is a duty of the legislature. We cannot allow legislative functions to be delegated to other officials without our consent. That is the principle known as the doctrine of nondelegation.
In 2001, the Supreme Court said, "the power to create an agency is peculiarly legislative in nature." That is part of the legislative function. The Constitution provides that legislative power is vested in the Congress. What is legislative power? The Constitution no longer defines what it is because everybody knows that legislative power is the power to make laws, and one of the laws that only Congress can do is to create an agency. That is a decided case of our Supreme Court. It was repeated in 2001 in the case of EIIB (Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau) v. Zamora where the SC said that no other entity in government can create an agency except the Congress. Remember the EEIB? It was the office that raised the issue of whether the Office of the President can simply create a new bureau and the SC said "No, wait for Congress to give you that power directly or indirectly."
Most recently, in the 2008 case of Abakada Partylist v. Secretary Cesar Purisima, the SC said, "You cannot delegate legislative power except when two instances are present.
Number one, the statute or the law must be complete." That means there must be a statute passed by Congress. The essential element of completion means there is a policy stated by Congress in that particular law.
Number two, there should be a sufficiency of standards, meaning to say that Congress in that enabling law should give the limitations or the guidelines so that the delegee or the person to whom the legislative power has been delegated will not run riot in exercising legislative powers.
But in any event, you will see from the jurisprudence of our SC, that one doctrine has remained the same for the years, and that is legislative function cannot be exercised unless it is duly delegated by Congress. Duly delegated means that Congress has passed a law that tells the executive or the judicial branch what is the policy of the law and what are the limitations and the restrictions.
In this case, Malacañang is disingenuous. It is claiming that its power is drawn from the Administrative Code of 1997 passed by President Corazon Aquino. What is that specific provision? The provision there that says "The President shall have power at any time to reorganize his office"? Is the President merely reorganizing his office when he creates the Truth Commission? Come on! You reorganize when something already existed and you change something in that existing office. Here, they are creating something out of nothing. They are not reorganizing, they are creating. They fall squarely under the statement of the SC: "The power to create an agency belongs exclusively to the Congress."
Kaya dapat naman sana meron tayong kaunting humility, na hindi tayo lalaban nang lalaban basta gusto natin. Huwag naman tayong basta magsabi na just because there is a power to reorganize in the Administrative Code, which is in effect a delegation of power to the President, na to reorganize an office is sufficient authority to assume or usurp legislative functions.
Let me say it candidly: EO No. 1 is a usurpation of legislative function, and we in the legislative branch are bound by duty to oppose that kind of usurpation, even if I have to go to the SC, even with my poor physical health, to fight for it. You have to have a law passed by Congress which gives you that power of legislative function either directly or indirectly.
So my challenge to the Palace is this: Show me where in the Constitution is there a general provision that gives the power to create an office to the executive branch of government. If you cannot show a constitutional provision, I shall be equally happy. Show me a law passed by Congress that gives you the power to create agencies without a specific statute passed by Congress to that effect. Kapag wala silang naipakita at ulit-ulitin lang nila, "But we have the power to reorganize," then they are less than being honest to the Filipino people.
If you read EO No. 1, you get the very definite impression that Malacañang is extremely disappointed with the Office of the Ombudsman. Kasi ang gustong mangyari ng Malacañang ay dapat gawain ng Ombudsman. Sa tingin ng presidente at mga assistant niya masyadong mabagal ang Ombudsman o kaya may partiality siya, o kaya incompetent siya, kaya gusto nila palitan siya. Hindi siya mapalitan dahil ayon sa Constitution, she stays there for seven years unless you impeach her.
So what they are doing is setting up a parallel organization to the Ombudsman. Can you do that? Can you take away a function from a constitutional body and give it to a separate body? Notice that in EO No.1, the Truth Commission is described as an independent body. Independent of whom? Independent of the executive branch just like the Ombudsman is an independent body in the Constitution because it is supposed to be, by its functions, under the executive, but the Constitution wants it independent of the executive. So Malacañang wants nothing less than independence for this body. It does not want the Ombudsman to improve the delivery of the basic social service of fighting graft and corruption; it wants to create its own creature.
But it's not allowed; you have to follow a certain procedure. You go to Congress and say, "Will you please give me broad powers to perform a legislative function?" The mere fact that it is fact-finding does not change anything. That's beside the question.
The first question in government is, "Is it Constitutional?" That is the prejudicial question. No questions of wisdom, patriotism, or exigency shall justify any law that does not conform to the Constitution. It is not the question of whether we want to give the administration a chance. We want to give it more than a chance. We want to cooperate with it. We want to give it full support so that all big crooks can be immediately sent to jail or shot on sight if possible.
But we have to do what the Constitution says. And I really, really resent it and am extremely disappointed to the point of ill health that people who are supposed to be running government can present such a weak reason to the Filipino people. Why do we have to go through the rigmarole of saying, "But there is an Administrative Code that gives the President the power to reorganize." Are we reorganizing really? How many agencies can you create in Malacañang simply from the power to reorganize? Payagan natin iyan, wala nang katapusan iyan.
This is very shallow legal preparation for a job that takes expertise. Why don't they ask, for example, retired Justice Isagani Cruz? He's an expert in constitutional law. Why don't they ask Florentino Feliciano, one of the world's acknowledged experts in law? Why don't they ask Merlin Magallona, former dean of the UP College of Law? Why give this basic assumption to someone who knows not his constitutional law? Why are we being besieged of these half-baked opinions of amateurs? Why am I wasting my life reading these sophomoric opinions?
If they insist, let's bring it to the Supreme Court. If nobody else wants to bring it, I'll ask for a blood transfusion or something so that I can file the petition to the SC. This is a gross violation of the Constitution. This is what happens when lay people start to make technical interpretations of the Constitution. There are rules for interpreting the Constitution.
The complexity of LAWS MIRIAM had sighted makes the TRUTH COMMISSION CONSTITUTIONAL.After-all it is the substance to ferreting the TRUTH. The prosecutable power lies with the judiciary. In LAW 1+1 could be 2 could be 5 could be 0. Truth could mean the exact Arithmetic which is 2 and put closure of the subject matter in this case those to be investigated scandals.
If former chief justice DAVIDE and now as member justice Callejo accepted their role or post of the Commission, then there are enough reasons to believe that the body has its Bearing's.
And let alone those many complexities of applied laws bury more the mindset of MIRIAM S.I favour the creation of the body.
Senator Santiago's argument against the truth commission is impeccable. That is, if one is to analyze the issue based only on what she said. What did she fail to mention? Her argument is based on the premise that the legislature is very capable and possesses unassailable integrity. However, the official which the truth commission wishes to investigate is a member of the legislature. It is also premised on the members of legislature being elected with the absence of fraud. For the peace of mind of everybody, we would like to pretend that there was no fraud committed. But at best, we could only hope that the fraud was not huge enough to turn the tide of election. In recognition of the intellectual excellence of our politicians, I believe no audit will uncover the election fraud since it was committed outside of the election process. It is in the money. Who provided the politicians' campaign fund? If the government provided the campaign fund, then, that is the election fraud. Or, the fund cound have been extorted, or may have been bribes for government contracts. There would have been no necessity for the truth commission if the legislature had been true to its mission. As it is, it seems we elected rats to guard the granary.
When Gloria (a name without glory) created a number of commissions during her term, why Sen. Santiago did not question it? Why she is questioning it now and making a noise. Is she protecting Gloria? - romel
Santiago is a liar and she publicly admitted it. Remember " Magpapabaril daw sya sa Luneta", she's still alive and making noise. Obviously, she's lawyering for GMA. her politicking is more obvious than her constitutional narratives.
Santiago's lawyering for GMA is more obvious than her constitutional narrative. Though, she slightly shed light on technical matters pertaining to the legal creation of commission, she must understood that the bulk of the legislators (lootbag congressmen) and the ombudsman have shown their partisanship on issues that the commission will try to investigate. There is clear mandate for the executive to bring closure to these issues. Remember that those same band of legislatures blocked the passage for the Right of Information Bill. Truth should not be blocked by mere technicalities...
This one should really make the truth commission humble. If the jueteng lord approached Puno and his relatives, why did he not report these to the proper authorities to be arrested? Declining their offer is not enough. He is a government official for goodness sake. If he is not against the gambling lords, then he is with the gambling lords. His family had been in the government too long, specially during the most corrupt episodes, and all this time he had done nothing to stop the gambling lords.
Sometimes we need to remind ourselves that PNoy is the elected president. The bishops exposed government staff of coddling jueteng (illegal gambling) lords and in retaliation PNoy attacked the bishops on their stand on reproductive health. At least the bishops are true to their nature, but PNoy is completely against his own promises. Again we should remember that PNoy is the elected president and not Mr.Puno. This shows how the illegal gambling money can corrupt a government.
Following is the link to the inquirer news that tells why PNoy cannot remove Puno:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101011-297060/Puno-tells-why-Aquino-would-think-twice-before-letting-him-go
Everything he said shows that he is a blackmailer and an opportunist. Does he know a really dark secret about PNoy? Did he give PNoy a toyboy or a minor child to be abused? What is the secret. If a blackmailer can manipulate a president of the country, the only option for that president, in order to avoid compromising the common good, is to resign.
Everything he said shows that he is a blackmailer and an opportunist. Does he know a really dark secret about PNoy? Did he give PNoy a toyboy or a minor child to be abused? What is the secret. If a blackmailer can manipulate a president of the country, the only option for that president, in order to avoid compromising the common good, is to resign.
designer dog tags
Everything he said shows that he is a blackmailer and an opportunist. Does he know a really dark secret about PNoy? Did he give PNoy a toyboy or a minor child to be abused? What is the secret. If a blackmailer can manipulate a president of the country, the only option for that president, in order to avoid compromising the common good, is to resign.designer dog tags
SenSantiago likes grandstanding on every opportunity. I'm fed up with her tantrums. Huwag na lang pansinin yan.
Living in a legal environment does not mean living in a moral one. Legal is far from moral. The constitution was established as a guide for the country and if the government does not want follows what is stated in the constitution maybe they would like to change the constitution. If they would not like to change it then maybe they would just like to accept it and pass the problem they encountered to the next administration. Either way it’s their decision as elected officials.
It would also be helpful if PNOY would consult other experts with the constitution for his actions. Would it hurt to ask someone more knowledgeable than you are for an opinion? Even if the leader is not intelligent but if he is willing to get advice from good people and he/she can take criticisms in order to improve, I believe he/she can be a great leader.
The issue for the creation of the Truth Commission can be cleared by the Supreme Court. And it is our officials’ duty to ensure that this issue be brought. It is our senator's duty to bring these things to the people's attention. And if the Supreme Court would say that the creation of the commission is alright then the issue is cleared and everything can move forward.
If the supreme court would say that its not constitutional, then the administration should really ask it from congress.
If people would not like to follow policies and procedures, then just remove the constitution and the administration can do anything. Maybe chaos is better than the security provided by the constitution.
GMA is part of the congress but she does not represent the congress as a whole. Her vote in the congress is not even 0.5% and the government does not need 100% of the votes to pass something in the congress. If she got other representatives that she can influence, we have to accept the fact that those representatives was chosen by your our countrymen and they have put their trust on these individuals.
The people elected in their positions are the persons those people would like to lead them. If you would argue that they cheated on the past election, then the actions of the people by just being silent about it expresses their consent. If we keep on questioning the decisions of other people maybe we should divide the country based on people who we would like to lead us. Let us give a government for PNOY, a government for ERAP, a government for GMA, and government to other individuals for their own. And we should also let them have the people their allies in their own government.
If you don't like the idea of Philippines having different governments maybe you would like one government with full control. An administration who would be the executive, legislative and judiciary at the same time? Isn't that dictatorship? Would the current administration like to eliminate the Supreme Court and the legislative branch of the government? Would the executive like the legislative and judiciary power? For what reason? - to place gloria behind bars? I believe that the people are no longer concerned if the administration can place Gloria behind bars. The people are more concerned on what they would eat this meal time. They are more concerned on their current needs, the security of the economy; whether this country would be a good place for their sons and daughters.
The government should be aware that a lot of its population has already migrated to other countries. A lot of its population is already working abroad and already thinking of migrating. A lot of people are also thinking on how to leave this country.
Thank you to a number of people who still believes in this country - People who still believes in OUR Country.
People are demanding for a change on how the government runs but what we are seeing today is just a repetition of Cory Aquino's administration. We are already caught in a cycle and we are trying to find a way out. If we keep on repeating what our fathers and mothers have done we are not going anywhere. We are just repeating what has already been included in our history books. If you don’t like what have happened to Our Country during the past administrations then you should do things that they failed to do, things that they have never tried, and things that would work.
- Sapang Ulaga
People are demanding for a change on how the government runs but what we are seeing today is just a repetition of Cory Aquino's administration. We are already caught in a cycle and we are trying to find a way out. Florida family health insurance quotes
It's just elementary logics like somebody said earlier. Either he's with the gambling lords and the online casino games or he's against them... it's simple as that !