A SENIOR high school instructor on Thursday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to rule on the constitutionality of President Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr.’s executive order creating the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) to investigate the multi-billion anomalous flood control projects of the government.
The petitioner, John Barry Tayam, said he has a legal standing to file the petition being a taxpayer, a citizen, and a registered voter.
He noted that Executive Order No. 94, which created the ICI, involves the appropriation and expenditure of public funds.
Aside from the constitutionality of EO 94, the petitioner also asked the Court to ‘determine the scope of authority’ of the ICI.
In his petition, Tayam raised two issues-whether the EO 94 is unconstitutional and whether the functions of ICI are contrary to law or existing jurisprudence.
He said EO 94 may face challenges to its constitutionality based on previous Court’s decisions and principles of separation of powers.
Tayam likened the ICI to the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) formed by the late President Benigno Aquino III in 2010 by virtue of an Executive order to probe alleged corruption and other controversial cases under the Arroyo administration.
The SC, however, declared it unconstitutional in the same year for violation of the equal protection clause, which is guaranteed under the Constitution.
The Court held that while PTC’s intention to investigate graft and corruption was noble, it could not ignore that its mandate was focused on a single administration.
While the ICI may not be identical to the PTC, Tayam said a conflict of interest may arise as the investigation being conducted by the former centers on the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), which is under the Executive branded headed by Marcos.
‘While the current structure may offer some difference from the PTC, defining the scope as the last 10 years from 2025 creates a potentially biased outcome,’ the petitioner argued.
‘This limited timeline would only allow for a partial investigation of the latter half of the PNoy administration [2015-2016], yet it would cover the entirety of the Duterte administration [2016-2022],’ the petitioner stressed.
Likewise, Tayam said there is no provision in the assailed executive order excluding the remaining years of the Marcos administration from the ICI investigation.
‘This situation also constitutes unfairness and a violation of the equal protection clause,’ the petitioner said.
He added that the creation of ICI only prolongs the investigation and creates redundancy with existing government bodies such as the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice.
Tayam also noted that the Senate and the House of Representatives already have existing committees which can assist with the investigation or case build-up against those involved in the flood control scandal.
‘This excessive bureaucracy effectively deprives the public of its right to a speedy trial, a right crucial for a frustrated populace demanding quick resolution regarding the individuals involved in the flood control issues,’ he pointed out.
Tayam also questioned the legality of ICI’s policy not to publicize its hearings and the records of its previous hearings which runs counter to the public transparency policy.
‘Collectively, these actions clearly violate the people’s constitutional right to public information.this approach directly contradicts the President ‘s own calls for improved transparency made in 2023,’ the petition stated.