BIRAOGO VS PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION

G.R. NO. 192935, DECEMBER 7, 2010

FACTS:

 In May 2010 elections, Senator Benigno Aquino won as the president of the Philippines.
 During his campaign, his slogan, pertaining to his condemnation of graft and corruption,
was “KUNG WALANG CORRUPT, WALANG MAHIRAP”
 After winning the presidency, he transformed this slogan into reality by signing the
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO.1 establishing the PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION to
investigate the reported cases of graft and corruption committed during the previous
administration.
 After barely a month, LOUIS BIRAOGO (PETITIONER) filed a special civil action for
prohibition in his capacity as a citizen and taxpayer.
 According to him, the EO 1 violates the legislative power of the Congress as it usurps the
constitutional authority of the legislature to create public office and to appropriate
funds.
 The respondent, through the Office of Solicitor General (OSG), questioned the legal
standing of the petitioner
1. the OSG argues that, as a taxpayer, he has no standing to question the
creation of the PTC and the budget for its operations
2. OSG pointed out also that Biraogo has not shown that he sustained, or is in
danger of sustaining, any personal and direct injury attributable to the
implementation of Executive Order No. 1.

ISSUE:

Whether or Not the petitioner has legal standing to file his petition and question the Executive
Order no. 1

NOTE:

In relation to the topic, Conditions for the Exercise of Judicial Review, if we look at the
limitations of judicial reviews, we can see that it is necessary that:

(1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;

(2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the
subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial
interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of
its enforcement;
(3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and

(4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lismota of the case.

In the case, no. 2 is being questioned.

DECISION:

Yes, the petitioner has the legal standing to file this petition.

The Court leans on the doctrine that “the rule on standing is a matter of procedure, hence,
can be relaxed for nontraditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and
legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is of
transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount
public interest.”

In the case, Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. v. Torres, the Court held that in cases of
paramount importance where serious constitutional questions are involved, the standing
requirements may be relaxed and a suit may be allowed to prosper even where there is
no direct injury to the party claiming the right of judicial review. In the first Emergency
Powers Cases, ordinary citizens and taxpayers were allowed to question the
constitutionality of several executive orders although they had only an indirect and
general interest shared in common with the public.

Hence, the judicial review in this case can be applied.