G.R. No.

192935, 637 SCRA 78, December 7, 2010

Doctrines:

For a classification to be valid, it should be applicable to future conditions as well.

While reasonable prioritization is permitted, it should not be arbitrary lest it be struck down for being
unconstitutional.

Facts:

Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (PTC).

PTC is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of the President, which is tasked to investigate
reports of graft and corruption and to submit its finding and recommendations to the President,
Congress and the Ombudsman.

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 filed a case alleging the constitutionality of E.O. No. 1 for it 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. It does not apply equally to all members of
the same class such that the intent of singling out the “previous administration” as its sole object makes
the PTC an “adventure in partisan hostility.

They argue that the search for truth behind the reported cases of graft and corruption must encompass
acts committed not only during the administration of former President Arroyo but also during prior
administrations where the “same magnitude of controversies and anomalies” were reported to have
been committed against the Filipino people.

They assail the classification formulated by the respondents as it does not fall under the recognized
exceptions because first, “there is no substantial distinction between the group of officials targeted for
investigation by Executive Order No. 1 and other groups or persons who abused their public office for
personal gain; and second, the selective classification is not germane to the purpose of Executive Order
No. 1 to end corruption.”

Issue:
WON E.O No. 1 is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection clause.

Held:

Yes, E.O No. 1 is unconstitutional for being 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” The intent to
single out the previous administration is plain, patent and manifest.

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.

While reasonable prioritization is permitted, it should not be arbitrary lest it be struck down for being
unconstitutional.