Truth commission

During these times of intense cynicism occasioned by almost total lack of confidence in existing institutions charged with upholding the truth and dispensing justice, the creation of another body with such a glamorous name as "Truth Commission" somehow revives hope and stimulates optimism. Undoubtedly, the formation of a commission composed of men and women of proven integrity and intellectual capacity is going to emit even a glint of the light at the end of the dark tunnel we are passing through right now. Great expectations however usually turn out into big disappointments due to some misapprehensions and wrong impressions. Under our existing legal framework this highly touted commission is definitely not the kind of "super body" that will bring us out of the tunnel and end the political crisis gripping our nation today.

The President said that she initiated the creation of the commission "to look into the truth behind issues recently raised against her." Based on this pronouncement, the commission to be created will therefore probe not only the vote rigging charges stemming from the tape recording of her conversation with a Comelec official, but also the jueteng payola expose involving members of her family. In this country where the "rule of law" and "due process" are well entrenched, digging for evidence to establish the truth behind these issues is like mining for gold in one’s backyard or finding the proverbial needle in the haystack. An Administrative or Executive Order cannot simply exempt the proposed commission from complying with certain rules on the appreciation, admissibility and worth of evidence. While strict application of technical rules may be dispensed with in the interest of truth and substantial justice, such dispensation is still not allowed if it will vary the essential ingredients of the most basic rights guaranteed by our Constitution like the right against self-incrimination, the right to remain silent, the right to personal privacy and privacy of communication, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.

These evidentiary rules safeguarding one’s basic rights may be disregarded only if the very person involve waives them, expressly or impliedly. The President almost did it when she broke her silence last June 27, 2005 "to set the record straight" on "the issue of the tape recordings". But her admission and apology still fell short of establishing the whole truth. Apparently it was so carefully worded to avoid the perception that she was waiving any of her basic rights under the Constitution particularly the right against self-incrimination. Thus while she admitted that "she had conversations with many people, including a Comelec Official", it was merely a "lapse of judgment" because "she was anxious to protect [her] votes" and "not to influence the outcome of the election" as the election "had already been decided and the votes counted". She did not confirm nor deny the existence of the alleged "Gloria-Garci" tapes, or that she had conversation with then Comelec Commissioner Garcillano, or that her conversation was wiretapped without her knowledge and consent. The answers to these questions still have to be determined.

In reality, legislative investigations in "aid of legislation" are already ongoing to establish the truth behind these issues besetting the President. But even with all those legislative powers and immunity privileges granted to witnesses, the investigations are going nowhere and turning into a circus. The probes simply lack credibility not only because of the inadmissibility and worthlessness of the evidence unearthed under the existing rules but mainly because some of our congressional probers are politically motivated to establish the guilt of, and oust, a President rather than to find out the truth. Concededly, the men and women of independence, integrity and probity to be chosen as truth commissioners are not similarly motivated. Yet in going about their task, they will still be subject to the same barriers and pitfalls that Congress itself is encountering now. If a major branch of the government cannot dig deep enough to ferret out the truth, can a mere administrative body do any better?

The truth is that there is no need for a truth commission anymore. Constitutional bodies that can do the job of the proposed commission already exist. They are already well equipped and properly manned, with long established rules designed for the effective exercise of the power to dig up the truth bestowed on them by the Constitution. These are the Supreme Court acting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal which is the most competent body to tackle the vote-rigging charges. It can open the previously dismissed electoral protest of the late FPJ and examine the contested election returns if PGMA will not object. Then there is the Impeachment Court consisting of the entire Senate to hear and decide the impeachment complaint initiated by the Lower House involving the impeachable offenses arising from the tape conversations and the illegal gambling payoffs. If these Constitutional bodies will just perform their functions conscientiously, diligently and without fear or favor, the truth will necessarily come out.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]