100ARAW.com

[CenPEG] President Aquino III’s move to form a Truth Commission that will
investigate Gloria M. Arroyo’s alleged wrongdoings committed in nine
years of her presidency raises public expectations way above
government’s ability to meet. Right now, there are courses of action
that can be taken by independent groups serious with the prosecution
of the discredited former president without even waiting for Aquino to
fulfill his campaign promises in putting closure to Arroyo’s
accountability for the alleged public crimes.

Davide (left) was Arroyo's envoy to the UN, deodorizing the former president's record until the 2010 elections when he switched support to Aquino. (Photo credit: Philippine Information Agency)

Under her 9-year watch (January 2001 – June 2010), Arroyo along
with many top officials were implicated in election fraud, major cases
of corruption, plunder, and gross and systematic human rights
violations. These allegations led to the filing of four successive
impeachment complaints against her and – in the case of the rights
violations – in the holding of a number of independent tribunals that
found the former president guilty. Although Arroyo was the alleged
principal perpetrator these cases could not have happened without the
complicity of her political allies, Cabinet members, generals,
business cronies, and others. Justice has been denied owing to the
inaction if not the complicit role of top officials of the Ombudsman,
prosecutors, and state investigators.

At this point, nothing is clear about the task of the Truth
Commission. This early, however, the independence of the commission is
being questioned given that it will be headed by a former Arroyo
appointee. Former Supreme Court chief justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
Davide, who once headed the fact-finding commission on the coup
attempts staged against President Corazon C. Aquino in the late 1980s,
served as permanent representative of the Philippine mission to the
United Nations and had sworn Arroyo to the presidency in 2001 upon the
ouster of then President Joseph E. Estrada.

The proposed presidential commission is not without precedent.
There was the Agrava Commission that probed into the assassination of
opposition figure Benigno Aquino, Jr. in 1983. Others were the Davide
Commission, Feliciano Commission (Oakwood mutiny, 2003), and the Melo
Commission (2006) that looked into political killings. Although the
Agrava commission linked military men to the 1983 assassination its
mastermind remains unknown to this day. The Davide commission only
resulted in a “kid’s gloves” approach to the coup plotters. Leaders of
the Oakwood mutiny were detained and tried but the issues they had
raised including corruption in the armed forces remain unheeded to
this day. The Melo commission became just a political ploy to
neutralize the growing international outrage over the political
killings.

Specific investigations

What is common among these past commissions is their investigation
of specific cases, whether incidents of political assassination, coup
attempts, or the summary execution of activists. The proposed Truth
Commission is more than this: It is expected to look into cases of
corruption, plunder, electoral fraud, and human rights violations.
Similar to the past commissions, the new Davide-led body will
investigate but can only recommend the prosecution of perpetrators.
What happens after that is an entirely different story.

Even if it is formed as a superbody with powers to summon both
alleged perpetrators, co-conspirators, and witnesses the proposed
commission’s mandate will likely be so vast that fulfilling its
mission would be agonizingly long if not nearly impossible.
Theoretically, a truth commission should only look into a specific
incidence of inter-related crimes. Thus it has the choice of probing
into corruption, electoral fraud, plunder, or human rights cases.
Among others, the professed goal is to put an end to a heinous crime
committed over a period of time, deliver its perpetrators to justice,
and bring about a major transformation. The prosecution of Arroyo and
other officials for corruption, for instance, can be a definitive step
toward fulfilling Aquino III’s campaign pledge to end the culture of
corruption in government.

However, in any of the possible areas of investigation, evidences,
documents, and testimonies are already ample and available these
having been gathered in numerous hearings and investigations done by
both government and constitutional bodies as well as by credible
independent groups and international organizations. The truth that the
commission seeks to find and consolidate is distilled in these data
that can be used to build a strong case. With all the information
available, it would be redundant for the Truth Commission to conduct
another lengthy investigation especially when what is needed at this
time is speedy justice.

Regardless, the Truth Commission will conduct its own inquiry. For
investigation to be credible it will have to summon not only the
principal respondent but all other authorities and individuals without
whose complicit role the alleged crimes would not have been committed
and several laws violated in a period of nine years. These elements
are still entrenched in government, hold powerful positions whether in
the civilian or military-police institutions and, who knows, a number
of them have been appointed or re-appointed in the Aquino cabinet.

Then, what?

Granting an investigation is done, how will the prosecution then
proceed? Aquino III needs all the political will and support he can
muster just to overhaul the Arroyo-appointed Ombudsman and other legal
bodies so that the judicial process can move forward. Without
congressional enactments, however, the agencies concerned cannot just
be made to act accordingly these being constitutional bodies. The
Philippine justice system is weak and unreliable yet too politicized
that legitimate cases not to mention charges involving the powers that
be will not prosper.

With all these gridlocks, there are courses of action that the new
president can – and should – do without even waiting for the Truth
Commission to begin its herculean task. For instance, he should now
rein in the military and assert civilian authority by terminating the
counter-insurgency program that continues to involve political
killings and buckle down to serious peace talks with the armed Left
and MILF. He should order the justice department to proceed with the
first complaint filed against Arroyo instead of holding it in abeyance
in deference to the Truth Commission. He can ask Congress to act on a
pending bill increasing the powers of the Commission on Human Rights
(CHR) for the prosecution of erring military and police forces.

A historical lesson is worth mentioning at this point. Ferdinand
Marcos was ousted by people power in 1986 following years of
corruption, plunder, and human rights violations. But the first
directive issued by Corazon Aquino when she took over the presidency
is to provide immunity from prosecution to all Marcos officials and
generals involved in human rights cases. There was “reconciliation”
with the oppressors; victims have long been forgotten to this day.
With all this betrayal, thousands of torture victims filed a class
suit against the Marcoses in Honolulu and succeeded in getting a
conviction later.

Justice

This only proves that justice cannot await any government action.
It is up for victims of rights violations and those directly or
indirectly affected by corruption, plunder, and electoral fraud to by,
their own efforts, let justice bear upon the perpetrators. Legal
alternatives can be mulled on how and where legitimate cases against
Arroyo and company can be filed. Hope is not lost; only the collective
will of the people can make it happen.

Truth Commissions emerged from civil strife and transitional
periods in some countries of South America, Africa, and Asia during
the 1970s. Generally, they dealt with human rights with investigations
focused on patterns of mass killings and state-sponsored terrorism.
Their role is as part of the “healing process” that aims to put
closure to a history of repression and provide trauma healing and
restorative justice to its victims and their surviving families. These
high expectations were, however, not generally met because some of the
commissions lacked impartiality or independence. In other countries,
amnesties were given right away to perpetrators at the expense of the
victims themselves. Some transitional governments used the truth
commission as a means of reconciling with the past – without
necessarily allowing justice to prevail.