BIRAOGO v.

PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION

G.R. Nos. 192935/ 193036 December 7, 2010
J. Mendoza
Topic: Bill of Rights > Equal Protection
G.R. No. 192935: Petitioner: Louis Biraogo / Respondent: Phil Truth Commission of 2010
G.R. No. 193036: Petitioner/s: Reps. Edcel Lagman, Rodolfo Albano Jr., Simeon Datumanong, Orlando
Fua Sr.
Respondent/s: Exec Sec Paquito Ochoa Sr., DBM Sec Florencio Abad

FACTS:
 Petitions assailing the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1 (entitled Creating the Philippine
Truth Commission of 2010) signed by former President Benigno Simeon Aquino.
- G.R. No. 192935 - special civil action for prohibition filed by Biraogo in his capacity as a
citizen and taxpayer. Argument: EO No. 1 was violative of the legislative power of Congress
under Section 1, Article VI of the Constitutions it usurps the constitutional authority of the
legislature to create a public office and to appropriate funds.
- G.R. No. 193036 - special civil action for certiorari and prohibition filed by Lagman, Albano
Jr., Datumanong, and Fua, Sr. as incumbent members of the House of Representatives.
 EO No. 1 was the materialization of Aquino’s campaign against graft and corruption which was
his primary slogan during his candidacy for the presidential post. Said EO was intended to create
PTC which will be special body to investigate reported cases of graft and corruption allegedly
committed during the previous administration.
Stated in the EO are the tasks to be undertaken by PTC. Some are the ff:
- Identify and determine the reported cases of such graft and corruption
- Collect, receive, review and evaluate evidence related to or regarding the cases of large scale
corruption
- Invite or subpoena witnesses and take their testimonies
- Call upon any government investigative or prosecutorial agency such as the Department of
Justice or any of the agencies under it, and the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, for such
assistance and cooperation as it may require in the discharge of its functions and duties.
 Nature of PTC:
- 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. Results of the
investigations shall be submitted to the President, Congress and the Ombudsman.
- shall have all the powers of an investigative body under Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of the
Administrative Code of 1987.
- Not a quasi-judicial body as it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle, or render awards
in disputes between contending parties
- Tasks are limited to: gathering, collecting and assessing evidence of graft and corruption and
make recommendations
- has subpoena powers but no power to cite people in contempt, much less order their arrest
- cannot determine from such facts if probable cause exists as to warrant the filing of an
information
 - cannot impose criminal, civil or administrative penalties or sanctions.

Truth Commissions: PH v. Other Countries

Truth Commission’s characteristics: (1) they examine only past events; (2) they investigate
patterns of abuse committed over a period of time, as opposed to a particular event; (3) they are
temporary bodies that finish their work with the submission of a report containing conclusions
and recommendations; and (4) they are officially sanctioned, authorized or empowered by the
State.
Members of commission are empowered to conduct research, support victims, and propose policy
recommendations to prevent recurrence of crimes. Truth Commissions aim to discover and learn
more and formally acknowledge past abuses; and to prepare the way for prosecutions and
recommend institutional reforms. Goals range from retribution to reconciliation.
Nuremberg and Tokyo war crime tribunals - retributory bodies set up to try and punish those
responsible for crimes against humanity
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa – reconciliatory tribunal whose principal
function principal function was to heal the wounds of past violence and to prevent future conflict
by providing a cathartic experience for victims.
PH’s PTC (EO No.1) – aims to identify and punish perpetrators.
 Petitioners’ arguments:
1. violates the separation of powers as it arrogates the power of the Congress to create a public
office and appropriate funds for its operation
2. President does not have the power to create an entirely new public office
3. illegally amended the Constitution and pertinent statutes when it vested the Truth
Commission with quasi-judicial powers duplicating, if not superseding, those of the Office
of the Ombudsman and the DOJ
4. violates the equal protection clause as it selectively targets for investigation and prosecution
officials and personnel of the previous administration only
5. violates the consistent and general international practice where States constitute truth
commissions to exclusively investigate human rights violations
6. it was a façade to impress the people and was clothed with political agendas
 Respondents’ comment:
1. the President’s executive power and power of control necessarily include the inherent power
to conduct investigations to ensure that laws are faithfully executed
2. 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. PTC is a fact-finding body only and not a quasi-judicial body; thus, its functions do not
duplicate, supplant or erode the latters jurisdiction
4. does not violate the equal protection clause because it was validly created for laudable
purposes.

ISSUE/S + HELD:
Preliminary issue: Valid exercise of the power of judicial review? Yes.
Limitations of judicial review:
- there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
 - the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject
act or issuance;
- the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity;
- the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.
1. W/n petitioners have the legal standing? YES
Lagman, et al as legislators have the legal standing. The Court cited Philippine Constitution
Association v. Enriquez where it was held that the impairment in the powers of the Congress
extends to the power of each member, and that a member can question any act of the Executive
which injures the institution of Congress.

Biraogo did not show that he will sustain or is in danger of sustaining any personal and direct
injury. However, the Court pointed out that care must be exercised in cases when
determining locus standi in public suits. A petitioner can have standing as a citizen or as a
taxpayer. The proper test to use is direct injury test where the US SC ruled “that for a private
individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of an executive or legislative
action, he must show that he has sustained a direct injury as a result of that action, and it is not
sufficient that he has a general interest common to all members of the public.” The same test was
adapted by our SC in cases such as People v. Vera, Custodio v. President of the Senate, Manila
Race Horse Trainers Association v. De la Fuente, Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works and Anti-
Chinese League of the Philippines v. Felix.

The Court ruled that this strict rule on legal standing can be relaxed when the matter is
of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public
interest. This case presents constitutional issues which deserve the Court’s attention. Also, the
Court believed that the Filipino people are interested in the status of the efforts initiated by the
President upon its promise to bring change in the country.

2. W/n EO 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? YES
The petitioners averred that the President must be empowered by the Constitution, a statute or a
law before he can create a public office. Biraogo pointed out that Sec 31 of Administrative Code
of 1987 is inconsistent with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution
and must be deemed repealed upon its effectivity. For Lagman et al, the delegated authority of the
President to reorganize under Section 31 does not permit the President to create a public office
and is limited to the reorganization of the administrative structure of the Office of the President,
as well as in restructuring of the internal organs of the Office of the President Proper.

For the OSG, the President possesses the inherent authority to create fact-finding committees to
assist it in the performance of its constitutionally mandated functions and in the exercise of its
administrative functions. When a president creates a fact-finding commission, it is pursuant to his
duty to ensure that all laws are enforced by public officials and employees of his department. His
powers include power of control over his subordinates in the executive branch, power to
discipline subordinates, and power for rule making, adjudication and licensing purposes. The
OSG concludes that the power of control necessarily includes the power to create offices.
 Court: it is a misplaced belief to consider the creation of PTC as part of the restructuring power of
the President. In Canonizado v. Aguirre as cited in Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Exec Sec,
reorganization involves the reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof
by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. It takes place when there is an alteration of the
existing structure of government offices or units therein, including the lines of control, authority
and responsibility between them. Furthermore, the power to control does not justify the creation
of PTC since the power to control is inherent in the Executive while the creation of a public office
needs a valid delegation from Congress. OSG cannot find solace in its contention that the creation
of PTC was sanctioned by PD 1416. The Court refused to recognize this stance because this PD
was no longer effective upon the adoption of the 1987 Constitution and that PD 1416 pertained to
the transition from presidential to parliamentary type.

While the creation of PTC was not sanctioned, the Court believed that there is no impropriety in
the funding since the commission will be funded using the funds the Congress has provided for
the Office of the President.

3. W/n EO No. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman and the DOJ? NO.
PTC was not vested with quasi-judicial functions as it cannot adjudicate rights of persons who
come before it. Its functions are limited to conducting investigations, results of which will be
transmitted to the appropriate courts/ quasi-judicial office/ agency for further actions. The Court
said that judicial discretion is involved in the exercise of quasi-judicial power, such that it is
exclusively vested in the judiciary and must be clearly authorized by the legislature in the case of
administrative agencies. To show the difference between power to investigate and the power to
adjudicate, the Court cited Cario v. Commission on Human Rights where it was stated that
investigate meant “to follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observation” while adjudicate
meant “to settle in the exercise of judicial authority”. It is not adjudicating when the task is
merely fact-finding, receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy.
Thus, PTC will not supplant DOJ nor the Ombudsman; the actual prosecution of suspected
offenders, much less adjudication on the merits of the charges still lies with the DOJ and
Ombudsman.

4. W/n EO No. 1 violates the equal protection clause? YES

The petitioners questioned the purpose of the EO when it singled out the Arroyo administration
for the cases of graft and corruption it will pursue. They asserted that there is no substantial
distinction between the group of officials targeted for investigation by Executive Order No. 1 and
other groups or persons who abused their public office for personal gain and that the selective
classification is not germane to the purpose of Executive Order No. 1 to end corruption.

In answering this issue, the Court reiterated that equal protection simply requires that all persons
or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities
imposed. It requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a
similar manner; that EP exists to secure every person within a state’s jurisdiction against
intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a statue or by
its improper execution through the states duly constituted authorities. Although EP bears the word
 ‘equal’, it does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons or things without
distinction. What it simply requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid
classification, where the Test of Reasonableness is the most appropriate standard to use. The four
requisites of the test are:
- The classification rests on substantial distinctions
- germane to the purpose of the law
- not limited to existing conditions only
- applies equally to all members of the same class.
For a classification to meet the requirements of constitutionality, it must include all persons who
naturally belong to the class. Substantial similarity will suffice. Classification must also be
applicable to those who may be placed in similar circumstances and conditions after such
classification is established.

The Court believed that the singling out of the Arroyo administration was clear and manifest. It
pointed out that the Arroyo administration is just a member of a class a class of past
administrations and not a class of its own.

OSG said that there was a valid contention on why PTC should focus on the Arroyo
administration. It cited widespread reports of large scale graft and corruption in the previous
administration; as its predecessor, the Arroyo administration has an impact on the current
administration; and that many administrations subjected their predecessors to investigation to
provide closure to the issues that are pivotal to the nation. However, OSG clarified that PTC will
not focus only on said administration as stipulated in Sec 17 of EO No.1, which provides:

SECTION 17. Special Provision Concerning Mandate. If and when in the judgment
of the President there is a need to expand the mandate of the Commission as defined
in Section 1 hereof to include the investigation of cases and instances of graft and
corruption during the prior administrations, such mandate may be so extended
accordingly by way of a supplemental Executive Order.

The Court believed that although there is a possibility that other administrations will be
investigated in the future by this PTC, there is no certainty as the discretion to expand the scope
was solely on the President.

RULING:
Petition granted. EO No. 1 declared unconstitutional as it is violative of the equal protection clause.

NOTES:
Faithful-execution clause – under Art 7, Sec 17; President’s power to conduct investigations to ensure that
laws are faithfully executed.