Miriam, Ping trade barbs over anti-corruption body

MANILA, Philippines - Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago and former senator Panfilo Lacson traded barbs over the latter’s proposal to create an anti-corruption body under the Office of the President.

“His plan is laughable and ridiculous. It is unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, and egotistic. It is amazing that the former senator can be so brazen as to propose a plan that violates existing standards of law and ethics,” Santiago said.

Santiago said Lacson’s proposal is also  “unintelligent.”

Reacting to Santiago’s tirades, Lacson said, “Only the corrupt and the corruptible will resent the creation of an anti-corruption body.”

Lacson also challenged Santiago to review the Administrative Code of 1987 on her claims that the President has no power to create a public office.

He defended the proposed anti-corruption commission, saying that unlike the Truth Commission, which was struck down by the Supreme Court (SC), his proposed commission is not discriminatory since it “will target all corrupt public officials.”

“The Philippine STAR editorial today has compared the about-to-be created commission against corruption with the thwarted Truth Commission in 2011,” he noted.

Lacson also slammed The STAR’s editorial cartoon, which portrayed the commission as above the Ombudsman.

“As I have already said, it complements and fills the gap in the law enforcement aspect of the ombudsman’s campaign, not interferes or goes over it. I hope this is clarified,” he said, adding that “nothing can be farther than the truth.”

Legislative function

Santiago, however, maintained that the creation of a public office is primarily a legislative function as a basic principle of the tripartite system of democracy.

“He should go to Congress and lobby for this self-serving, self-aggrandizing personal pet project of his,” Santiago said.

Santiago said Lacson’s plan violates not only the Constitution but also the Administrative Code and Republic Act 6975, also known as the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Act of 1990.

“There is an existing Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force headed by Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. Lacson wants Ochoa bumped off. There is also an existing PNP under the control and supervision of the DILG secretary, who is Mar Roxas. Similarly, Lacson wants to bump off Roxas. What gall,” Santiago said.

Santiago said a series of high court rulings had shot down Lacson’s proposal, aside from the ruling on the Truth Commission, which prohibits the President from creating an office, under the guise of a reorganization.

She also cited a 2001 case where the SC ruled that there was no valid delegation of power from Congress empowering the President to create a public office. The President is authorized to create a new office, but only as part of an executive reorganization, she quoted the SC ruling.

Santiago added that in the 2003 case of Bagaoisan vs National Tobacco Administration, the high court ruled that the President is not allowed to remove civil service employees in bad faith following a reorganization. She noted that one of the indications of bad faith is “where an office is abolished and another performing substantially the same functions is created.”

She said in a 1998 case of Ople vs Torres, the SC ruled that in the guise of issuing an administrative order, the President could not usurp the legislative power to create offices.