BIRAOGO VS Philippine Truth Commission

G.R. No. 192935 December 7, 2010

FACTS:

Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing the 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. Though it has been described as an
independent collegial body, it is essentially an entity within the Office of the President Proper and
subject to his control.

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 fact-finding 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 E.O 1 unconstitutional and to enjoin the PTC from performing its
functions. They argued that 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.

Petitioners further contended that 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.

ISSUES:

Whether or not 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?

Whether or not E. O. No. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman and the DOJ?

RULING:

There is no usurpation on the part of the Executive of the power of Congress to appropriate funds.
There will be no appropriation but only an allotment or allocations of existing funds already
appropriated. 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. Moreover, 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.
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.

At any rate, the Ombudsman’s power to investigate under R.A. No. 6770 is not exclusive but is shared
with other similarly authorized government agencies.

The act of investigation by the Ombudsman contemplates the conduct of a preliminary investigation or
the determination of the existence of probable cause. This is categorically out of the PTCs sphere of
functions. Its 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. In this regard, the PTC commits no act of usurpation of the Ombudsman’s primordial duties.