Biraogo vs The Philippine Truth Commission

G.R. No. 192935. December 7, 2010

LOUIS "BAROK" C. BIRAOGO, petitioner,

vs
THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010, respondent.

FACTS

After a month in office, President Benigno Aquino III issued Executive Order No. 1 (E.O. 1)
on July 30, 2010 creating the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC). The PTC was tasked to
conduct a thorough fact-finding investigation of reported cases of graft and corruption involving
third level public officers during the administration of Aquino's predecessor Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo. All it can do is gather, collect, and assess evidence of graft and corruption and
thereafter submit its findings and make recommendations to the Office of the
President, Congress, and the Ombudsman. It cannot impose criminal, civil or administrative
penalties or sanctions.

Private citizen Louis Biraogo and a group of congressmen led by Lakas Kampi
CMD chairman Rep. Edcel Lagman filed in the Supreme Court separate petitions for certiorari
and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of E.O. 1 based on their belief that the creation of
the PTC constitutes usurpation of the legislative power to create public office, threatens the
independence of the Office of the Ombudsman, and violates the equal protection clause of
the Philippine Constitution for specifically targeting certain officials of the Arroyo
administration.

Biraogo, the petitioner, 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 and such power cannot be presumed.
 The petitioner adds that the President is only authorized by law (Section 31 of the
Administrative Code of 1987) to reorganize his office, thus, his cannot serve as the basis for the
creation of the PTC.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the president can create public office such as the PTC without usurping the
powers of Congress;
2. Whether the purpose of the PTC transgresses the constitutional guarantee of equal
protection of the laws.

HELD:

1. The President has the authority to create the PTC, not a public office.
Majority of the members of the Supreme Court rejected the justification of
the Solicitor General (OSG) that the creation of the PTC finds basis on the president’s
power of control over all executive offices. The Decision stressed that “control” is
essentially the power to alter, modify, nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had
done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former with
that of the latter. Clearly, the power of control is entirely different from the power to
create public offices. The majority also rejected the OSG’s claim that the E.O. finds basis
under sec. 31 of the Administrative Code, which authorizes the president to restructure
the Office of the President. Clearly, “restructure” under the said provision refers to
reduction of personnel, consolidation or abolition of offices by reason of economy or
redundancy. This presupposes an already existing office. The creation of an office is
nowhere mentioned, much less envisioned in said provision.

2. The majority members of the Supreme Court held that E.O. 1 should be struck down as
violative of the equal protection clause.
Laying down a long line of precedents, the ponencia reiterated that equal
protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated
alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. The purpose of the equal
 protection clause is to secure every person against intentional and arbitrary
discrimination.
The Decision stressed that the clear mandate of the PTC 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. The Arroyo administration, according to the ponencia, is 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 gave the majority
an impression that the PTC is just being used “as a vehicle for vindictiveness and
selective retribution” and that E.O. 1 is only an “adventure in partisan hostility.”
While the Court recognized that the creation of the PTC was inspired with noble
intentions, the ponencia nonetheless reminded the government of the ethical principle that
“the end does not justify the means.” It emphatically closed by stressing that the search
for the truth must be within constitutional bounds, for “ours is still a government of laws
and not of men.”

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.