Biraogo v. PTC (G.r. No. 192935) Lagman v. Abad (G.r. No. 193036)

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, REP. RODOLFO B. ALBANO, JR., REP.
SIMEON A. DATUMANONG, and REP. ORLANDO B. FUA, SR.
vs.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR. and
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SECRETARY
FLORENCIO B. ABAD
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 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 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. WHETHER OR NOT the petitioners have legal standing to file the

petitions and question E. O. No. 1;
2. 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;
3. WHETHER OR NOT E. O. No. 1 supplants the powers of the
Ombudsman and the DOJ;
4. WHETHER OR NOT E. O. No. 1 violates the equal protection clause.
HELD:
The power of judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit: (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 lis mota of the case.
1. The petition primarily invokes usurpation of the power of the Congress

as a body to which they belong as members. To the extent the powers of
Congress are impaired, so is the power of each member thereof, since his
office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that
institution.
Legislators have a legal standing to see to it that the prerogative, powers

and privileges vested by the Constitution in their office remain inviolate.
Thus, they are allowed to question the validity of any official action which,
to their mind, infringes on their prerogatives as legislators.
With regard to Biraogo, he has not shown that he sustained, or is in

danger of sustaining, any personal and direct injury attributable to the
implementation of E. O. No. 1.
Locus standi is a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given

question. In private suits, standing is governed by the real-parties-in
interest rule. It provides that every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party in interest. Real-party-in interest is
the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit
or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
Difficulty of determining locus standi arises in public suits. Here, the

plaintiff who asserts a public right in assailing an allegedly illegal official
action, does so as a representative of the general public. He has to show
that he is entitled to seek judicial protection. He has to make out a
sufficient interest in the vindication of the public order and the securing of
relief as a citizen or taxpayer.
The person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal
and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will
sustain direct injury as a result. The Court, however, finds reason in
Biraogos assertion that the petition covers matters of transcendental
importance to justify the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. There are
constitutional issues in the petition which deserve the attention of this
Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents
The Executive is given much leeway in ensuring that our laws are faithfully
executed. The powers of the President are not limited to those specific
powers under the Constitution. One of the recognized powers of the
President granted pursuant to this constitutionally-mandated duty is the
power to create ad hoc committees. This flows from the obvious need to
ascertain facts and determine if laws have been faithfully executed. The
purpose of allowing ad hoc investigating bodies to exist is to allow an
inquiry into matters which the President is entitled to know so that he can
be properly advised and guided in the performance of his duties relative to
the execution and enforcement of the laws of the land.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Court finds difficulty in upholding the constitutionality of Executive Order

No. 1 in view of its apparent transgression of the equal protection clause
enshrined in Section 1, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution.
Equal protection 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. The purpose of the equal protection clause
is to secure every person within a states 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.
There must be equality among equals as determined according to a valid

classification. Equal protection clause permits classification. Such
classification, however, to be valid must pass the test of reasonableness.
The test has four requisites: (1) The classification rests on substantial
distinctions; (2) It is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) It is not limited
to existing conditions only; and (4) It applies equally to all members of the
same class.
The classification will be regarded as invalid if all the members of the class
are not similarly treated, both as to rights conferred and obligations
imposed.
Executive Order No. 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal

protection clause. The clear mandate of truth commission is to investigate
and find out the truth concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption
during the previous administration only. The intent to single out the
previous administration is plain, patent and manifest.
Arroyo administration is but just a member of a class, that is, a class of

past administrations. It is not a class of its own. Not to include past
administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the equal
protection clause cannot sanction. Such discriminating differentiation
clearly reverberates to label the commission as a vehicle for
vindictiveness and selective retribution. Superficial differences do not
make for a valid classification.
The PTC must not exclude the other past administrations. The PTC must,
at least, have the authority to investigate all past administrations.
The Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation to

which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private
rights determined and all public authority administered. Laws that do not
conform to the Constitution should be stricken down for being
unconstitutional.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. Executive Order No. 1 is

hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it is violative of the
equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Biraogo v. PTC (G.r. No. 192935) Lagman v. Abad (G.r. No. 193036)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biraogo v. PTC (G.r. No. 192935) Lagman v. Abad (G.r. No. 193036)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biraogo v. PTC (G.r. No. 192935) Lagman v. Abad (G.r. No. 193036)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What was the purpose of creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010?

What was the purpose of creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010?

What were the main arguments made against the constitutionality of EO No. 1?

What were the main arguments made against the constitutionality of EO No. 1?

G.R. No.

192935 December 7, 2010

Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth Commission

Petitioners asked the Court to declare it unconstitutional and to enjoin the

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

Respondents, through OSG, questioned the legal standing of petitioners

3] The Truth Commission does not duplicate or supersede the functions of

1. WHETHER OR NOT the petitioners have legal standing to file the

1. The petition primarily invokes usurpation of the power of the Congress

Legislators have a legal standing to see to it that the prerogative, powers

With regard to Biraogo, he has not shown that he sustained, or is in

Locus standi is a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given

Difficulty of determining locus standi arises in public suits. Here, the

2. There will be no appropriation but only an allotment or allocations of

4. Court finds difficulty in upholding the constitutionality of Executive Order

Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated

There must be equality among equals as determined according to a valid

Executive Order No. 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal

Arroyo administration is but just a member of a class, that is, a class of

The Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation to

WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. Executive Order No. 1 is

You might also like