Equal protection clause (2)
INAASAHAN ang paghain ng motion for reconsideration ng tanggapan ng Solicitor General sa Korte Suprema kaugnay ng pagbasura nito ng EO 1 ni PNoy.
Walang UNREASONABLE CLASSIFICATION, or more to the point, walang SINGLING OUT kay dating PGMA sa mga imbistigasyong itatakda ng Truth Commission (“TC”) kaugnay ng mga anomalya sa nakaraang administrasyon niya.
The SC has to read in between the lines – as it usually does in equity cases. If EO 1 appears to be textually trained on PGMA and her ilks, there is NO exclusivity intended; only emphasis that in those investigations, the PRIORITY would be on scams/anomalies where she and her men had reported involvement.
The fact that the TC, from day one of its convening, has been inviting the public to come out in the open and file appropriate cases against ALL who may have been involved in anomalies/irregularities during PGMA’s incumbency negates the paranoid perception that the intended investigations will exclusively zero in on her and those involved.
Unfortunately, such distorted interpretation has always been the Court majority’s mindset. Hence, its perceiving EO 1 as P-Noy’s chief WITCHHUNT INSTRUMENT from the very beginning.
Stated differently, the Highest Court appears to have already pre-judged the contra-EO 1 petition in favor of the petitioner/s by mistaking PRIORITY (in the conduct of investigations by the TC) for/with EXCLUSIVITY (on the subject/s of such investigations).
Rapidfire commented in the last issue that the apparent leeway afforded the President in EO 1 to subject all other previous Philippine Presidents to the intended investigations by the TC is more than substantial compliance with the Constitutional requirements relative to the equal protection clause.
Sa pananaw ng Rapidfire, di na kailangang amendahan pa ang EO 1 to pluralize the word “administration” (obviously by adding the letter “s” after the last letter “n”) to encompass in the issuance’s coverage other PAST Philippine presidents. Kailangan lamang ang HINDI makitid na pag-iintindi ng Kataas-Taasang Hukuman sa pagrepaso nito ng ihahaing M.R. ng pamahalaan.
By way of additional argument, the apprehension that Pres. Aquino might not be subsequently minded to authorize the investigation of anomalies associated with previous other Philippine Chiefs of State is misplaced.
This Supreme Court, in its obviously faded golden years, had occasion to stress that in the face of an executive order’s apparent equivocalness, the PRESUMPTION should always be that the President issued the same with a rational and conscientious regard for the rights of subject/s as well as the interest of the body politic.
That implies ensuring that the intended subject/s would not be victims of class legislation or “selective persecution”, and further, that the intended state action/investigation shall promote the common weal (Kwong Sing vs. City of Manila, 41 Phil. 103).
As the ultimate refuge of constitutional arguments, it is urged that the Highest Court should not be hostile to P-Noy’s EO 1. Rather, the Court should bend backward, shed off procedural tyranny and beckon with/listen to the people’s feverish clamor to put closure, NOW NA, to GRAFT and CORRUPTION – the CANCER that has relentlessly knawed the fibers of this nation, and reached unprecedented proportion during the almost two-term reign of PGMA! Alex Almario