Aquino won the presidency in May on the platform of fighting poverty and corruption, but has run into obstacles in a court system and bureaucracy dominated by appointments made by former leader Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
Voting 10-5, the country’s highest court declared the setting up of the truth commission as unconstitutional because it “violates the equal protection clause of the constitution,” said Gleoresty Guerra, a court spokeswoman.
“Majority ruled the executive order violates the equal protection clause of the constitution inasmuch as it singles out investigation of graft and corrupt practices in the previous administration,” Guerra told reporters.
“The justices resolved the case according to what they viewed was based on the law,” Guerra said, rejecting accusations the court, dominated by Arroyo appointees, had ruled to protect her from investigation.
Arroyo had appointed all but one of the 15-member court while in power for 9 years after an army-backed popular uprising removed former President Joseph Estrada in 2001 over allegations of taking bribes from illegal gambling operators.
But, Arroyo was also hounded by allegations of poll fraud and corruption until her term ended on June 30, surviving three attempts by rogue troops to unseat her and five impeachment motions in the lower house of Congress.
Aquino has promised to pursue Arroyo on some high profile and large-scale corruption cases, but he has yet to win a legal battle after three major setbacks, including the reinstatement of an Arroyo appointee he had removed.
In October, he criticized a court ruling, warning it “could precipitate a clash with another separate, co-equal branch of government.”
The latest ruling was described by Aquino’s spokesman, Edwin Lacierda, as a setback to the government’s anti-corruption drive.
“We’re disappointed by the decision on the truth commission, but it won’t keep us from pursuing cases against Arroyo and her former officials,” Lacierda told reporters.
Arroyo’s allies in the lower house of Congress celebrated the court ruling as “a triumph of the rule of law.”
“Partisan hostility and discrimination under the pretense of search for truth and closure cannot be legitimized,” said Edcel Lagman, an opposition congressman who questioned the legality of the truth commission before the high court.
