LOUIS "BAROK" C.

BIRAOGO, Petitioner,

vs.

THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010, Respondent.

G.R. No. 192935

December 7, 2010

MENDOZA, J.

TOPIC: THEORY AND JUSTIFICATION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

DOCTRINE:

The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review which is the power to declare a
treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation unconstitutional.

FACTS:
1. Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth Commission of 2010
(PTC) dated July 30, 2010.
2. PTC is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of the President with the primary
task 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, and to submit its finding and recommendations to the President, Congress
and the Ombudsman.
3. PTC has all the powers of an investigative body. But it is not a quasi-judicial body as it
cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle, or render awards in disputes between
contending parties. All it can do is gather, collect and assess evidence of graft and
corruption and make recommendations. It may have subpoena powers but it has no power
to cite people in contempt, much less order their arrest. 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.
4. Petitioners asked the Court to declare it unconstitutional and to enjoin the PTC from
performing its functions. They argued that:
 (a) E.O. No. 1 violates separation of powers as it arrogates the power of the
Congress to create a public office and appropriate funds for its operation.

(b) The provision of Book III, Chapter 10, Section 31 of the Administrative Code
of 1987 cannot legitimize E.O. No. 1 because the delegated authority of the President to
structurally reorganize the Office of the President to achieve economy, simplicity and
efficiency does not include the power to create an entirely new public office which was
hitherto inexistent like the “Truth Commission.”

(c) E.O. No. 1 illegally amended the Constitution and statutes when it vested the
“Truth Commission” with quasi-judicial powers duplicating, if not superseding, those of
the Office of the Ombudsman created under the 1987 Constitution and the DOJ created
under the Administrative Code of 1987.

(d) E.O. No. 1 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.

5. Respondents questioned the legal standing of petitioners and argued that:

(a) E.O. No. 1 does not arrogate the powers of Congress because the President’s
executive power and power of control necessarily include the inherent power to conduct
investigations to ensure that laws are faithfully executed and that, in any event, the
Constitution, Revised Administrative Code of 1987, PD No. 141616 (as amended), R.A.
No. 9970 and settled jurisprudence, authorize the President to create or form such bodies.

(b) E.O. No. 1 does not usurp the power of Congress to appropriate funds because
there is no appropriation but a mere allocation of funds already appropriated by Congress.

(c) The Truth Commission does not duplicate or supersede the functions of the
Ombudsman and the DOJ, because it is a fact-finding body and not a quasi-judicial body
and its functions do not duplicate, supplant or erode the latter’s jurisdiction.

(d) The Truth Commission does not violate the equal protection clause because it
was validly created for laudable purposes.
ISSUE/S:

WON Executive Order No. 1 is unconstitutional

RULING:

The petitions are GRANTED and Executive Order No. 1 is hereby declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it is violative of the equal protection clause of the
Constitution.

The Philippine Supreme Court, according to Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987
Constitution, is vested with Judicial Power that "includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave of abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government."

Furthermore, in Section 4(2) thereof, it is vested with the power of judicial review which
is the power to declare a treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation unconstitutional. This power also
includes the duty to rule on the constitutionality of the application, or operation of presidential
decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations. These provisions,
however, have been fertile grounds of conflict between the Supreme Court, on one hand, and the
two co-equal bodies of government, on the other. Many times the Court has been accused of
asserting superiority over the other departments.

Thus, the Court, in exercising its power of judicial review, is not imposing its own will
upon a co-equal body but rather simply making sure that any act of government is done in
consonance with the authorities and rights allocated to it by the Constitution. And, if after said
review, the Court finds no constitutional violations of any sort, then, it has no more authority of
proscribing the actions under review.