CRIMINAL RULE 111

PROCEDURE
Title GR No. 192935
BIRAOGO V. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF
2010 Date: December 07, 2010
Ponente: MENDOZA, J.
Lous “Barok” C Biraogo Philippine Truth Commission of 2010

FACTS

President Benigno Aquino Jr signed Executive Order No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission of
2010. The PTC’s primary task is 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 thereafter to submit its finding and recommendations to the President. The PTC shall
have all the powers of an investigative body under Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of the Administrative Code
of 1987. All it can do is gather, collect and assess evidence of graft and corruption and make
recommendations. Needless to state, it cannot impose criminal, civil or administrative penalties or sanctions.

The petitioners asks the Court to declare it unconstitutional and to enjoin the PTC from performing its
functions.

ISSUE/S

1. Whether or not the petitioners have the legal standing to file their respective petitions and question
Executive Order No. 1;

2. Whether or not Executive Order 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 Executive Order No. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman and the DOJ;

4. Whether or not Executive Order No. 1 violates the equal protection clause; and

5. Whether or not petitioners are entitled to injunctive relief.

RATIO
1. Yes, as to petitioners-legislators because their their petition invokes usurpation of the power of Congress
as a body to which they belong as members. LEgislators are allowed to question the validity of any official
action which, to their mind, infringes on their prerogatives as legislators. As to Biraogo, he has no legal
standing to question the creation of the PTC and the budget of its operations. It emphasizes that the funds
to be used for the creation and operation of the commission are to be taken from those funds already
appropriated by Congress. Thus, the allocation and disbursement of funds for the commission will not
entail congressional action but will simply be an exercise of the President's power over contingent funds.
Notwithstanding, 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."
2. No. While the power to create a truth commission cannot pass muster on the basis of P.D. No. 1416 as
amended by P.D. No. 1772, the creation of the PTC finds justification under Section 17, Article VII of the
Constitution, imposing upon the President the duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. Section
17 reads: Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and
offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. (Emphasis supplied). As correctly pointed
out by the respondents, the allocation of power in the three principal branches of government is a grant
of all powers inherent in them. The President's power to conduct investigations to aid him in ensuring the
faithful execution of laws - in this case, fundamental laws on public accountability and transparency - is
inherent in the President's powers as the Chief Executive. That the authority of the President to conduct
investigations and to create bodies to execute this power is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or
in statutes does not mean that he is bereft of such authority.
3. No. Fact-finding is not adjudication and it cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or
even a quasi-judicial agency or office. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the
facts of a controversy is not a judicial function. To be considered as such, the act of receiving evidence
and arriving at factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the
law to the factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or resolved authoritatively,
finally and definitively, subject to appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. The 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. 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. Also, Executive Order No. 1 cannot contravene the power of the Ombudsman to
investigate criminal cases under Section 15 (1) of R.A. No. 6770. The act of investigation by the
Ombudsman as enunciated above contemplates the conduct of a preliminary investigation or the
determination of the existence of probable cause. This is categorically out of the PTC's 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.
4. Yes. Executive Order No. 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal protection clause. The clear
mandate of the envisioned 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. Mention of it has been made in at least three
portions of the questioned executive order. It must be borne in mind that the 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. 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.
TEST OF REASONABLENESS OF THE CLASSIFICATION
1. Classification rests on substantial distinctions
2. Classification is germane to the purpose of the law
3. It is not limited to existing conditions only
4. It applies equally to all members of the same class

5. Yes (no explanation)

RULING

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.

As also prayed for, the respondents are hereby ordered to cease and desist from carrying out the provisions
of Executive Order No. 1.

Notes

Injunctive relief, also known as an “injunction,” is a legal remedy that may be sought in a civil lawsuit, in
addition to, or in place of, monetary damages. Rather than offering money as payment for a wrong in a civil
action, injunctive relief is a court order for the defendant to stop a specified act or behavior.

PS: Sorry medyo mahaba yung digest saka hindi ko rin makita yung relate niya sa Rule 111 :(