Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010
Facts
Two petitions were consolidated into one case, both of which essentially question the validity and constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1: Creating the Philippine
Truth Commission of 2010.
The PTC is an ad hoc public office created by the Office of the President in order to investigate reports of graft and corruption committed during the Arroyo
administration by third-level public officers and employees, including co-principals, accomplices, and accessories. After investigations are conducted, the PTC will
submit its recommendations to the President, Congress, and the Ombudsman. The PTC has all the powers of an investigative body under Sec. 37, Chap. 9, Book I of
the Administrative Code of 1987.
Petitioners’ arguments
Biraogo: Executive Order No. 1 violates the constitutional power of Congress under Sec. 1, Art. VI of the Constitution as it usurps the constitutional authority of the
legislature to create a public office and to appropriate funds for it. Moreover, Section 31 of the Administrative Code of 1987 only grants the President the authority
to reorganize his office. It does not authorize him to create a new public office. It is also inconsistent with the principle of separation of powers.
Petitioners-legislators (Lagman, Albano Jr., Datumanong, Fua Sr.)
1. EO No. 1 violates the separation of powers since the power to create public offices belongs to Congress.
2. The Administrative Code does not grant the President the power to create new public offices. It only grants the power to reorganize the Office of the President.
3. EO No 1 amended the Constitution by giving the PTC quasi-judicial powers that supersede those of the Ombudsman and the DOJ.
4. EO. No. 1 violates the equal protection clause because it singles out the Arroyo administration.
Respondents’ arguments
Office of the Solicitor General
1. Like similar committees created during previous administrations, the President has the inherent authority to create fact-finding committees pursuant to his duty to
ensure that all laws are enforced by public officials. The President’s power of control includes the power to create offices. The power to create a truth commission
also finds statutory basis under PD 1416 as amended by PD 1772.
2. EO. No. 1 does not usurp the power of Congress to appropriate funds because there will only be allocation of funds already appropriated by Congress.
3. The PTC is a fact-finding body without any quasi-judicial functions. It will not supplant the Ombudsman or DOJ.
4. The PTC does not violate the equal protection clause because was created for laudable purposes.
Issues, Holding, and Ratio
Issue
Whether or not the petitioners
have the legal standing to file their
respective petitions and question
EO No. 1
Holding
Yes
Ratio
OSG: The petitioners-legislators do not have legal standing due to their failure to demonstrate their personal stake
in the outcome of the case. The petitioners have not shown that they have sustained personal injury attributable to
the creation of the PTC.
Supreme Court: Since the petitioner-legislators are members of Congress, they possess the legal standing to see to
it that the powers vested by the Constitution in their office remain inviolate. They are allowed to question the
alleged usurpation of the powers of Congress.
(Legal standing is an essential
requisite for judicial review.)
OSG: Biraogo, as a taxpayer, has no legal standing to question the creation of the PTC and the budget for its
operations. The PTC’s funding is taken from the funds already appropriated by Congress.
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
No
SC: The issue at bar is of transcendental importance. Thus, the court should perform its constitutional duty to settle
legal controversies with overreaching significance to society.
Under Section 31 of the Revised Administrative Code, the President only has the power to reorganize the Office of
the President, that is, to modify or alter existing offices. Furthermore, the President’s power of control is different
from the power to create offices. The latter is based on a valid delegation from Congress or the President’s duty to
faithfully execute the laws. PD 1772 cannot be used as a basis since it became functus officio when the First
Congress was convened.
However, the creation of the PTC finds justification under Sec. 17, Art. VII of the Constitution which mandates that
the President has a duty to ensure that laws are faithfully executed. These include fundamental laws on public
accountability and transparency. Thus, the president has the power to create ad hoc committees in order to fulfill
this duty.
Whether or not Executive Order
No. 1 supplants the powers of the
Ombudsman and the DOJ
No
Whether or not Executive Order
No. 1 violates the equal protection
clause
Yes
There will be no appropriation but only an allocation of existing funds. The funds Congress has provided for the
Office of the President will be the source of funds for the PTC.
The PTC will not perform any judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The actual prosecution of suspected offenders is
not a function given to the commission. The PTC will only receive evidence and ascertain the facts from the
evidence received. The findings of the PTC are not conclusive and are only recommendatory in nature. The power
to investigate is not limited to the Ombudsman or DOJ alone. The Ombudsman still has primary jurisdiction and
may take over the investigation at any time.
Equal protection of the laws does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons without
distinction. It allows classification as long it passes the test of reasonableness. In the case of EO No. 1, it singles out
the Arroyo administration which is an arbitrary classification. The PTC must have the power to investigate all of the
previous administrations. Though EO No 1 specifies that its power to investigate may be extended to other prior
administrations, it does not guarantee that they would be covered in the future. Thus, EO No. 1 is unconstitutional
due to its violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.