LOUIS BIRAOGO V.

PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION

G.R No. 192935
December 7, 2010

FACTS:
E.O No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) of 2010 was signed by
President Aquino. The said PTC is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of the President
tasked 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
of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and submit their findings and recommendations to the President,
Congress and the Ombudsman. However, PTC is not a quasi-judicial body, it cannot adjudicate,
arbitrate, resolve, settle or render awards in disputes between parties. Its job is to investigate,
collect and asses evidences gathered and make recommendations. It has subpoena powers but
it has no power to cite people in contempt or even arrest. It cannot determine for such facts if
probable cause exist as to warrant the filing of an information in our courts of law. Barely a month
after the issuance of EO No. 1, two cases were filed before the SC assailing the validity and
constitutionality of the said EO.
The first case is a special civil action for prohibition instituted by petitioner Louis Biraogo
in his capacity as a citizen and taxpayer. Biraogo assails Executive Order No. 1 for being violative
of the legislative power of Congress under Section 1, Article VI of the Constitution as it usurps the
constitutional authority of the legislature to create a public office and to appropriate funds therefor.
Biraogo argues that EO No. 1 is unconstitutional because there is no provision in the Constitution
or any specific law that authorizes the President to create a truth commission.
The second case is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners
Edcel C. Lagman, et. al. (petitioners-legislators) as incumbent members of the House of
Representatives. Petitioners-Legislators argue that the said Order is unconstitutional because the
creation of a public office lies within the province of Congress and not with the executive branch
of government.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the President has the power to create an ad hoc body such as the
Philippine Truth Commission.

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

3. Whether or not Executive Order No. 1 violates the equal protection clause.

RULING:

1. Yes.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. Indeed, the Executive is given much leeway in ensuring that our laws are
faithfully executed. As stated above, the powers of the President are not limited to those
specific powers under the Constitution. One of the recognized powers of the President
granted pursuant to this constitutionally-mandated duty is the power to create ad hoc
committees. This flows from the obvious need to ascertain facts and determine if laws
 have been faithfully executed. With AO 298 as mandate, the legality of the investigation
is sustained. Such validity is not affected by the fact that the investigating team and the
PCAGC had the same composition, or that the former used the offices and facilities of the
latter in conducting the inquiry.

On the charge that Executive Order No. 1 transgresses the power of Congress to
appropriate funds for the operation of a public office, suffice it to say that there will be no
appropriation but only an allotment or allocations of existing funds already appropriated.
Accordingly, there is no usurpation on the part of the Executive of the power of Congress
to appropriate funds. Further, there is no need to specify the amount to be earmarked for
the operation of the commission because, in the words of the Solicitor General, “whatever
funds the Congress has provided for the Office of the President will be the very source of
the funds for the commission. Moreover, since the amount that would be allocated to the
PTC shall be subject to existing auditing rules and regulations, there is no impropriety in
the funding.

2. 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. Contrary to petitioners’
apprehension, 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. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, the recommendation to
prosecute is but a consequence of the overall task of the commission to conduct a fact-
findinginvestigation.

The actual prosecution of suspected offenders, much less adjudication on the

merits of the charges against them, is certainly not a function given to the commission.
The phrase, “when in the course of its investigation,” under Section 2(g), highlights this
fact and gives credence to a contrary interpretation from that of the petitioners. The
function of determining probable cause for the filing of the appropriate complaints before
the courts remains to be with the DOJ and the Ombudsman.

3. Yes. Although the purpose of the Truth Commission falls within the investigative power of
the President, the Court finds difficulty in upholding the constitutionality of Executive Order
No. 1 in view of its apparent transgression of the equal protection clause enshrined in
Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

Such classification, however, to be valid must pass the test of reasonableness.

The test has four requisites: (1) The classification rests on substantial distinctions; (2) It is
germane to the purpose of the law; (3) It is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4)
It applies equally to all members of the same class. Superficial differences do not make
for a valid classification.

Applying these precepts to this case, 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.