G.R. No.

192935 December 7, 2010

LOUIS BAROK C. BIRAOGO
vs.
THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010
x -x
G.R. No. 193036
REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN ET. AL V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY & DBM
FACTS:
Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth Commission
of 2010 (PTC) dated July 30, 2010.
PTC is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of the President with
the primary task to investigate reports of graft and corruption committed by
third-level public officers and employees, their co-principals, accomplices
and accessories during the previous administration, and to submit its
finding and recommendations to the President, Congress and the
Ombudsman. PTC has all the powers of an investigative body. But it is not
a quasi-judicial body as it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle, or
render awards in disputes between contending parties. All it can do is
gather, collect and assess evidence of graft and corruption and make
recommendations. It may have subpoena powers but it has no power to
cite people in contempt, much less order their arrest. Although it is a factfinding body, it cannot determine from such facts if probable cause exists
as to warrant the filing of an information in our courts of law.
Petitioners asked the Court to declare it unconstitutional and to enjoin the
PTC from performing its functions. They argued that:

(a) E.O. No. 1 violates separation of powers as it arrogates the power of

the Congress to create a public office and appropriate funds for its
operation.
(b) The provision of Book III, Chapter 10, Section 31 of the Administrative
Code of 1987 cannot legitimize E.O. No. 1 because the delegated authority
of the President to structurally reorganize the Office of the President to
achieve economy, simplicity and efficiency does not include the power to
create an entirely new public office which was hitherto inexistent like the
Truth Commission.
(c) E.O. No. 1 illegally amended the Constitution and statutes when it
vested the Truth Commission with quasi-judicial powers duplicating, if not
superseding, those of the Office of the Ombudsman created under the
1987 Constitution and the DOJ created under the Administrative Code of
1987.
(d) E.O. No. 1 violates the equal protection clause as it selectively targets
for investigation and prosecution officials and personnel of the previous
administration as if corruption is their peculiar species even as it excludes
those of the other administrations, past and present, who may be
indictable.
Respondents, through OSG, questioned the legal standing of petitioners
and argued that:
1] E.O. No. 1 does not arrogate the powers of Congress because the
Presidents executive power and power of control necessarily include the
inherent power to conduct investigations to ensure that laws are faithfully
executed and that, in any event, the Constitution, Revised Administrative
Code of 1987, PD No. 141616 (as amended), R.A. No. 9970 and settled
jurisprudence, authorize the President to create or form such bodies.

2] E.O. No. 1 does not usurp the power of Congress to appropriate funds
because there is no appropriation but a mere allocation of funds already
appropriated by Congress.
3] The Truth Commission does not duplicate or supersede the functions of
the Ombudsman and the DOJ, because it is a fact-finding body and not a
quasi-judicial body and its functions do not duplicate, supplant or erode the
latters jurisdiction.
4] The Truth Commission does not violate the equal protection clause
because it was validly created for laudable purposes.
ISSUES:
1. WON E. O. No. 1 violates the principle of separation of powers by
usurping the powers of Congress to create and to appropriate funds
for public offices, agencies and commissions;
2. 2. WON E. O. No. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman and
the DOJ;
3. WON E.O. No. 1 violates the Equal Protection Clause
RULING:
1. There will be no appropriation but only an allotment or allocations of
existing funds already appropriated. There is no usurpation on the part of
the Executive of the power of Congress to appropriate funds. There is no
need to specify the amount to be earmarked for the operation of the
commission because, whatever funds the Congress has provided for the
Office of the President will be the very source of the funds for the
commission. The amount that would be allocated to the PTC shall be
subject to existing auditing rules and regulations so there is no impropriety
in the funding.
2. PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or the DOJ or erode their
respective powers. If at all, the investigative function of the commission will

complement those of the two offices. The function of determining probable

cause for the filing of the appropriate complaints before the courts remains
to be with the DOJ and the Ombudsman. PTCs power to investigate is
limited to obtaining facts so that it can advise and guide the President in the
performance of his duties relative to the execution and enforcement of the
laws of the land.
3. Yes, E.O No. 1 should be struck down as it is violative of the equal
protection clause. The Chief Executives power to create the Ad hoc
Investigating Committee cannot be doubted. Having been constitutionally
granted full control of the Executive Department, to which respondents
belong, the President has the obligation to ensure that all executive officials
and employees faithfully comply with the law. With AO 298 as mandate, the
legality of the investigation is sustained. Such validity is not affected by the
fact that the investigating team and the PCAGC had the same composition,
or that the former used the offices and facilities of the latter in conducting
the inquiry.