Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission (2010) | G.R. No. 192935 and G.R. No.

193036 | December 7, 2010 | Ponente :

MENDOZA, J.

Petitioner/s: Louis “Barok” Biraogo; Reps. Edcel Lagman, Rodolfo Albano, Jr., Simeon Datumanong, Orlando Fua
Respondent/s: Philippine Truth Commission of 2010; Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Jr., Dept. of Budget and Management
Secretary Florencio Abad

(revised with original digester’s permission)

SUMMARY: Two consolidated cases assailing the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1, creating the Philippine Truth
Commission, ordered by President Aquino III. The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order No. 1 violates the equal protection
clause enshrined in the Constitution, because it unreasonably targeted the Arroyo Administration, and not all the other
administrations before it.

FACTS:
- Executive Order No. 1 was issued by the President establishing the Philippine Truth Commission 1 of 2010.
- It was an ad hoc body formed under the Office of the President, to investigate the allegations of graft and corruption of
the previous administration under President Arroyo
- While PTC has all the powers of an investigative body under the Administrative Code of 1987, it is not a quasi-judicial
body since it cannot adjudicate or arbitrate. All it can do is gather, collect, and assess evidence of graft and corruption
and make recommendations. Neither does it have the power to cite in contempt, nor determine from the facts that it
has found if probable cause exists as to warrant the filing of an information in courts of justice
- Petitioners assail the constitutionality of EO No. 1 for (1) usurping the power of Congress to create and appropriate funds
for public offices, agencies and commissions, (2) supplanting the powers of the Ombudsman and DOJ, and (3) violating
the equal protection clause.
- OSG argues that petitioners have no standing, that the creation of the PTC is within the president’s power and does not
usurp

ISSUE/S + RULING:
1. (IMPT) Whether petitioners have the legal standing to file their respective petitions and question Executive Order 1 YES

 OSG : Petitioners-legislators have not shown that they have sustained or are in danger of sustaining any personal
injury attributable to the creation of the PTC.
 SC: petition primarily invokes usurpation of the power of the Congress as a body to which they belong as members.
 Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez,: an act of the Executive which injures the institution of Congress causes
a derivative but nonetheless substantial injury, which can be questioned by a member of Congress. In such a case, any
member of Congress can have a resort to the courts.
 legislators have a legal standing to see to it that the prerogative, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution
in their office remain inviolate.
o Thus, they are allowed to question the validity of any official action which, to their mind, infringes on their
prerogatives as legislators.
 As correctly pointed out by the OSG, Biraogo as a taxpayer, has no standing. He qhas 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.
o 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 Presidents power over contingent funds.
 rules on locus standi. Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. Accordingly, the 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. Succinctly put, the plaintiffs standing is based on his own right to the relief sought.
o 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 make out a sufficient interest in the vindication of the public order and the
securing of relief as a citizen or taxpayer.

1
A “truth commission” is a body that is created as official, transitory and non-judicial fact-finding bodies “to establish the acts
and context of serious violations of human rights or of international humanitarian law in a country’s past. They are bodies that
have the following characteristics: (1) examines 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 by the State. They conduct
research, support victims, and propose policy recommendations. The Court is of the opinion that it is DIFFERENT FROM OTHER
TRUTH COMMISSIONS.
 o In a taxpayer’s suit, the plaintiff is affected by the expenditure of public funds, while in a citizen’s suit, he is
but the mere instrument of the public concern. With respect to taxpayers suits, Terr v. Jordan held that the
right of a citizen and a taxpayer to maintain an action in courts to restrain the unlawful use of public funds
to his injury cannot be denied.
o People v. Vera, DIRECT INJURY TEST: that 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.
 However, 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
 The court agrees with Biraogo’s 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. Where the issues are of transcendental
and paramount importance not only to the public but also to the Bench and the Bar, they should be resolved for the
guidance of all
o the Filipino people are more than interested to know the status of the Presidents first effort to bring about
a promised change to the country.

2. Whether 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. NO.
- Petitioner Biraogo claims:
o There is no provision in the Constitution or any law that authorizes the president to create a “Truth
Commission”
o Sec. 31 of the Administrative Code of 1987, granting the President continuing authority to reorganize his office,
cannot serve as basis for the creation of a truth commission
 provision merely uses verbs like “reorganize,” “transfer,” “consolidate,” “merge,” and “abolish” (p.
152-153).
 Sec 31 – inconsistent with the principle of separation of powers, must be deemed repealed
- Petitioner-legislators claim:
o Creation of public office lies within Congress, not executive branch.
o The delegated authority of the President to reorganize under sec 31 of the Revised Administrative Code:
 Does not permit the President to create a public office, much less a truth commission
 Is limited to reorganization of the administrative structure of the Office of the President
 Is limited to the restructuring of the internal organs of the Office of the President Proper, transfer of
functions, and transfer of agencies
 Is only to achieve simplicity, economy, and efficiency*
o The issuance of EO No. 1 means the President overstepped the limits of his delegated authority
- OSG counters:
o that there’s nothing exclusively legislative about the creation by the President of a fact-finding body
 Previous administrations have done so in the past
 All branches have this power to create a fact-finding body
o This power is an adjunct of the plenary powers wielded by the President under Sec. 1 and his power of control
under Sec. 17, both in Art. 7 of the Constitution.
o Power to investigate includes the power of control over his subordinates, and extends to his power to discipline
the subordinates, the power for rule-making, adjudication and licensing purposes, and in order to be informed
on matters which he is entitled to know.*
*sorry I have no idea what this guy is saying so I just copied the sentence and read it in page 154 of the physical
copy (EDIT THIS LATER)!!!!!!!!!!!
o Power of control necessarily leads to the power to create offices
- Court rules
o The creation of the PTC is not under the power to of the president to reorganize under Sec. 31 of the Revised
Administrative Code.
 The provision refers to reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason
of economy or redundancy of functions.
 Creation of office not mentioned much less envisioned in the provision
 PTC not part of the structure under the Office of the President before EO 1
 According to Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Hon. Executive Secretary
 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.
o PTC creation also not under the president’s power of control.
  “Control” = essentially the power to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate
officer had done in the performance of his or her duties and to substitute the judgment of the
former with that of the latter.
 Power of control  power to create offices
 The former is inherent in the Executive Branch, the latter is either a valid delegation from Congress, or his inherent
duty to faithfully execute the laws.
o PD 1416, as amended by PD 1772, is asserted by the OSG to give the President the power to create a truth
commission.
o Court says no.
 PD 1416 was a delegation to President Marcos of power to make public offices, issued for the purpose
of transition towards a parliamentary form of government. This transitory period is anachronistic and
the power under said PD was repealed upon the adoption of the 1987 Constitution.
o However, under sec. 17 Article 7 of the Constitution, the Court finds justification.
 The allocation of power in the 3 principal branches of government is a grant of all powers inherent in
them.
 Power to conduct investigations is inherent in the President’s powers as Chief Executive.
 Even though it was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or in statutes does not mean that he is
bereft of such authority.
 Inherent to the power of the President is to create ad hoc committees
 Purpose: 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
o Court ruled against the claim that PTC creation is in violation of Congress’ power to appropriate funds
 President only using already appropriated funds from their office, which he is legally entitled to do.
3. Whether Executive Order No. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman and the DOJ. NO.
- PTC has the power to investigate, but not to adjudicate.
o Its power complements that of the Ombudsman and the DOJ, since the PTC merely recommends prosecution.
Determining probable cause for the filing of the appropriate complaints before the courts remains with the DOJ
and the Ombudsman.
- The power to investigate is not exclusive in the Ombudsman but is shared with other similarly authorized government
agencies such as the PCGG. Neither is the authority of the DOJ under the Revised Administrative Code exclusive.
- EO No. 1 doesn’t state that the findings of PTC are conclusive. The Ombudsman and the DOJ may still decide
whether to accept/reject the recommendation.
4. Whether Executive Order No. 1 violates the equal protection clause. YES.
- The equal protection clause does not prohibit classification so long as it is reasonable and grounded in substantial
differences.
- However, there is no reason for EO No. 1 to single out the Arroyo administration, which is a member of the class of all
past administrations. This discrimination makes the PTC an adventure in partisan hostility.
- Other earlier administrations were also blemished by reports of widespread corruption, not just the Arroyo
administration. It is not germane to the EO’s purpose of ending corruption to investigate only the Arroyo
administration.
- The OSG’s contention that investigating other past administrations would overburden the commission can’t be
upheld because it is irrelevant to the objective of ending corruption. PTC does not have to investigate all of them at the
same time, since reasonable prioritization is permitted.
- Though mere under-inclusiveness is not fatal to the validity of a law under the equal protection clause, the Arroyo
administration was deliberately singled out in EO No. 1 where it was underscored at least three times.
- Sec. 17 of EO No. 1, which provides that another EO may expand the mandate of PTC to include other past
administrations, does not save the respondents since it doesn’t assure that those administrations would be covered
in the future. It is still dependent on the whim and caprice of the President.

DISPOSITION: Petitions are GRANTED. Executive Order No. 1 is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL as it violates the equal protection
clause

DISSENTING OPINION/S:

CARPIO, J.
 EO 1 doesn’t violate the equal protection clause. Sec. 17 of EO 1 creating PTC only prioritizes the investigation of
acts of graft and corruption that may have taken place during the Arroyo administration. If time allows, the President
may extend the mandate of the Truth Commission to investigate other administrations prior to the Arroyo
administration. It is the same as Sec. 2(b) of EO No. 1, which was issued by President Cory Aquino in order to create
PCGG.
 o Section 2. The Commission shall be charged with the task of assisting the President in regard to the following
matters:
1. The recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his
immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates xxx.
2. The investigation of such cases of graft and corruption as the President may assign to the
Commission from time to time.
 Both the Truth Commission and the PCGG are primarily tasked to conduct specific investigations, with their mandates
subject to expansion by the President from time to time. This Court has consistently upheld the constitutionality of the
PCGG Charter.
 The prioritization of the Arroyo administration does not violate the equal protection clause because the prioritization is
based on reasonable grounds:
o The prescriptive period for acts of graft and corruption under the RPC is 20 years. Any investigation will have
to focus on alleged acts of graft and corruption within the last 20 years, almost half of which or 9 years is
under the Arroyo administration.
o The Marcos, Ramos and Estrada administrations were already investigated by their successor
administrations. This alone is incontrovertible proof that the Arroyo administration is not being singled out for
investigation or prosecution.
o All the past Presidents, with the exception of Presidents Ramos, Estrada and Arroyo, are already dead. Arroyo is
the only living president whose administration hasn’t been investigated.
o The more recent the acts of graft and corruption, the more readily available witnesses are and the better they
can recall events with accuracy. PTC is also constrained by the resources needed to investigate other past
administrations.
 Only those who are adversely affected (i.e. similarly-situated and yet not treated in the same way) may assail the
unconstitutionality of EO 1 via the equal protection clause. The petitioners in this case have not shown to be adversely
affected. The majority opinion actually is in itself a violation of the equal protection clause since the argument they should
have used is that past administrations similarly situated with the Arroyo administration were not investigated, not that
all administrations should have been covered in EO 1.
 Even using the proper argument, the petition would fail because Arroyo is the only living president whose administration
hasn’t been investigated.
 It is impossible for the PTC to investigate all previous administrations as the majority would have it do. The majority
opinion dispensed with public accountability and essentially made all future administrations immune from investigation.

NOTES:

- Section 17, Article 7 of the Constitution:

o SECTION 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall
ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
- KNOW WHAT A TRUTH COMMISSION IS, HE’S GOING TO ASK YOU THAT AND YOU BETTER NOT MESS UP.