Wide scope bared for truth body in EO

LOW-LEVEL OFFICIALS, PRIVATE EXECS COVERED

While focused on the nine-year Arroyo administration, the so-called Truth Commission created yesterday through Executive Order No. 1 will include in its broad scope public officials of at least third-level, such as department heads of government agencies and even private individuals suspected of being involved in graft and corruption cases.

President Aquino signed EO 1 yesterday creating the commission vested with investigative powers on all the reported cases of graft and corruption involving third-level public officials and higher, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories from the private sector during the previous administration, based on the order.

Officials who are implicated in the allegations of large-scale graft and corruption cases during the previous administration will be compelled to cooperate with the recently created body to be called the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said.

Under the six-page EO released by Malacañang late yesterday afternoon, the President was also given the prerogative to widen the mandate of the Truth Commission to include “investigation of cases and instances of graft and corruption” during the admi-nistrations prior to that of Arroyo’s.

“Such mandate may be so extended accordingly by way of a supplemental Executive Order,” according to the EO.

The Truth Commission will be headed by former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. and he will have 10 possible members to help him in the administration of the new independent investigative body.

It will be funded by the Office of the President and it will hold office tentatively at the space occupied previously by the Office of the Vice President.

Former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Arroyo, who is expected to be among the primary respondents in the body’s probe, has reportedly expressed willingness to cooperate with the Truth Commission but only through her legal counsel which, De Lima said, is ‘okay’ even as they await the rules of procedure which is yet to be promulgated by the members of the fact-finding body.

“We, of course, anticipate that some of these probable respondents will not cooperate under pain of the sanction here to be dealt with in accordance with law,” she said.

Section 9 in the EO-1 stipulates that public officials will be penalized with administrative disciplinary action if they refuse to respond to the summons of the Truth Commission and those private citizens involved will also meet the force of the law.

“But it [Arroyo’s participation through her lawyer] is okay with the Truth Commission for as long as it can gather information and evidences. So, at their own risk, they’ll be given the chance to present their side in the proceedings before the Commission. If they do not do that, then…well, that’s at their own risk because only the evidence against them would be considered,” De Lima explained.

Aquino earlier vowed that the Truth Commission will be fair in its conduct of investigations to the public officials concerned.

Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Eduardo de Mesa, who is among those who helped craft the EO, disclosed that the hearings of the Truth Commission will generally be open to the public but these can be made confidential upon the request of probable respondents and witnesses.

Witnesses and resource persons who are prepared to testify before the Truth Commission are accorded the “right to counsel” and will be entitled to security details from the Philippine National Police (PNP) and other appropriate government agencies to ensure their safety .

The Truth Commission was also granted the prerogative to engage experts to serve as consultants toward the accomplishment of its mission.

Lawmakers from both the Senate and House of Representatives have recently aired doubts on the Truth Commission’s scope of investigative authority given the fact that it cannot be granted prosecutorial powers through a presidential order.

“A lot of the people who are complaining about it seem to be people who might be part of the process,” Aquino, in a chance interview, said of the controversies that prematurely hounded the Truth Commission.

Observations are also rife that it would just duplicate the functions of existing government agencies such as those of the Department of Justice (DoJ) and even the Office of the Ombudsman, which are possibilities that De Lima has neither denied nor confirmed.

“At first glance, it [Truth Commission] seems to be a duplication of the DoJ and even of the Ombudsman. But no, because precisely the reason why we have this particular mechanism is that the President really wants a more focused and a more expeditious disposition of these cases to really put a closure to these very important issues hounding our society,” De Lima said.

De Lima added that the EO had set a particular timeline for the Truth Commission to fulfill its mandate which would be until December 31, 2012.

However, a special provision stipulated under Section 17 of the EO-1 indicates that the President may decide to extend the Truth Commission’s mandate depending on his judgment relevant “to the investigation of cases and instances of graft and corruption during the prior administrations by way of a supplemental Executive Order”.

De Lima also mentioned that the overlapping of cases could hardly be avoided given the fact that both the House and the Senate have already probed most of the cases before and some of them are already being heard in courts but these “will be kept at the minimum”.

“The cases or instances of overlapping would be kept to the minimum. That’s why among the powers and functions of the Commission is, upon proper request and representation, it can obtain information and documents from the Senate and the House of Representatives, from courts like, including the Sandiganbayan, and the Office of the Court Administrator,” she explained.

“There are cases [even if they’ve already gone through investigation] that still need to be evaluated by the Truth Commission especially if the results of those congressional hearings did not result in any prosecution or in any filing of charges. The Truth Commission will, therefore, complete the job in terms of gathering facts and evidence,” De Lima added.

Having a Merceditas Gutierrez around in the Office of the Ombudsman would also not affect the execution of the Truth Commission’s mandate just because of her close relationship with the former First Couple.

“This is an independent Commission separate of whatever is the actuation or the attitude or the stance of the Ombudsman or other agencies of government. The Truth Commission will have its own work and fulfill its mandate, so I don’t think so,” De Lima said.

“You cannot decide or speculate on what the Ombudsman will do at this time. But regardless, the Truth Commission will complete its work and make the appropriate recommendations,” De Mesa added for his part.

De Mesa further expressed confidence that all the cases which would be recommended by the Truth Commission for review of the Supreme Court would be able to stand scrutiny.

“If any provision of this Order is declared unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity and effectivity of the other provisions hereof,” the EO-1 stated in its separability clause in section 18. –Aytch S. de la Cruz, Daily Tribune