Biraogo vs.

Philippine Truth Commission

GR No. 192935
December 7, 2010

FACTS: President Benigno Aquino signed Executive Order No. 1 on July 30, 2010
establishing Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (PTC). 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 fact-finding body, it cannot
determine from such facts if probable cause exists as to warrant the filing of information
in our courts of law. Biraogo asserts that the Truth Commission is a public office and not
merely an adjunct body of the Office of the President. Thus, in order that the President
may create a public office he must be empowered by the Constitution, a statute or
an authorization vested in him by law. According to petitioner, such power cannot be
presumed since there is no provision in the Constitution or any specific law that
authorizes the President to create a truth commission. Petitioners asked the Court to
declare it unconstitutional and to enjoin the PTC from performing its functions. They
argued among others 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 contend the Constitutionality of the E.O. on the grounds that:

1. It violates separation of powers as it arrogates the power of Congress to create a

public office and appropriate funds for its operation;
2. The provisions 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 office was
inexistent like the Truth Commission;
3. The E.O. illegally amended the Constitution when it made the Truth Commission and
vesting it the power duplicating and even exceeding those of the Office of the
Ombudsman and the DOJ.
4. It violates the equal protection clause.

ISSUE: Whether or not the said E.O. is unconstitutional.

HELD: E.O. No. 1 is unconstitutional. It is violative of the equal protection clause.

The fact remains that Executive Order No. 1 suffers from arbitrary classification. The
PTC, to be true to its mandate of searching for the truth, must not exclude the other past
administrations. The PTC must, at least, have the authority to investigate all past
administrations. While reasonable prioritization is permitted, it should not be arbitrary
lest it be struck down for being unconstitutional.

Laws that do not conform to the Constitution should be stricken down for being
unconstitutional. While the thrust of the PTC is specific, that is, for investigation of acts
of graft and corruption, Executive Order No. 1, to survive, must be read together with the
provisions of the Constitution. To exclude the earlier administrations in the guise of
"substantial distinctions" would only confirm the petitioners’ lament that the subject
executive order is only an "adventure in partisan hostility." The Chief Executive’s 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.