BIRAOGO VS PTC

FACTS:
Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth Commission of
2010 (PTC) dated July 30, 2010.

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. 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.

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.

Respondents, through OSG, questioned the legal standing of petitioners and

argued that:

1] 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.

2] 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.

3] 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.

4] The Truth Commission does not violate the equal protection clause because
it was validly created for laudable purposes.

ISSUES:
1. WON the petitioners have legal standing to file the petitions and question E.
O. No. 1;
2. WON E. O. 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;
3. WON E. O. No. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman and the DOJ;
4. WON E. O. No. 1 violates the equal protection clause.

RULING:
The power of judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit: (1) there must be
an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the
person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of
the subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain,
direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality
must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality
must be the very lis mota of the case.
1. The petition primarily invokes usurpation of the power of the Congress as a
body to which they belong as members. To the extent the powers of Congress
are impaired, so is the power of each member thereof, since his office confers a
right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution.

Legislators have a legal standing to see to it that the prerogative, powers and
privileges vested by the Constitution in their office remain inviolate. Thus, they
are allowed to question the validity of any official action which, to their mind,
infringes on their prerogatives as legislators.

With regard to Biraogo, he has not shown that he sustained, or is in danger of

sustaining, any personal and direct injury attributable to the implementation
of E. O. No. 1.

Locus standi is “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.”

In private suits, standing is governed by the “real-parties-in interest” rule. It
provides that “every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the
real party in interest.” Real-party-in interest is “the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the
avails of the suit.”

Difficulty of determining locus standi arises in public suits. Here, the plaintiff
who asserts a “public right” in assailing an allegedly illegal official action, does
so as a representative of the general public. He has to show that he is entitled
to seek judicial protection. He has to make out a sufficient interest in the
vindication of the public order and the securing of relief as a “citizen” or
“taxpayer.

The person who impugns the validity of a statute must have “a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain
direct injury as a result.” The Court, however, finds reason in Biraogo’s
assertion that the petition covers matters of transcendental importance to
justify the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. There are constitutional issues
in the petition which deserve the attention of this Court in view of their
seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents

The Executive is given much leeway in ensuring that our laws are faithfully
executed. 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. The purpose of allowing ad hoc
investigating bodies to exist is to allow an inquiry into matters which the
President is entitled to know so that he can be properly advised and guided in
the performance of his duties relative to the execution and enforcement of the
laws of the land.

2. There will be no appropriation but only an allotment or allocations of

existing funds already appropriated. There is no usurpation on the part of the
Executive of the power of Congress to appropriate funds. There is no need to
specify the amount to be earmarked for the operation of the commission
because, whatever funds the Congress has provided for the Office of the
President will be the very source of the funds for the commission. The amount
that would be allocated to the PTC shall be subject to existing auditing rules
and regulations so there is no impropriety in the funding.

3. 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. 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. PTC’s power to investigate is limited to obtaining
facts so that it can advise and guide the President in the performance of his
duties relative to the execution and enforcement of the laws of the land.

4. 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 (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution.
Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should
be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It
requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in
a similar manner. The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every
person within a state’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary
discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a statue or by its
improper execution through the state’s duly constituted authorities.

There must be equality among equals as determined according to a valid

classification. Equal protection clause permits classification. 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.

The classification will be regarded as invalid if all the members of the class are
not similarly treated, both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed.

Executive Order No. 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal

protection clause. The clear mandate of 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.

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.
Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification.

The PTC must not exclude the other past administrations. The PTC must, at
least, have the authority to investigate all past administrations.

The Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation to which
all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights
determined and all public authority administered. Laws that do not conform to
the Constitution should be stricken down for being unconstitutional.
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.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ( PCGG AFP-BOARD) VS
SANDIGANBAYAN ( MAJOR GENERAL JOSEPHUS RAMA AND ELIZABETH
DIMAAN0)
GR NUMBER 104768
JULY 21, 2003

ANTECEDENT FACTS
 President Corazon Aquino, upon her assumption to office issued
Executive order No. 1 creating Presidential Commission on Good
Governance last February 28 , 1986. Primarily tasked to recover ill-
gotten wealth of former Pres.Marcos, his immediate family,
relatives,subordinates and close associates.
 With the power vested to PCGG, its chairman then Jovita Salonga
created an Armed Forces of the Philippines Anti-Grant Board ( AFP-
BOARD). - tasked to investigate reports of unexplained wealth and
corrupt practices by AFP personnel, whether in the active service or
retired.

FACTS

 Evidence in the record showed that respondent is the owner of a house

and lot located at 15-Yakan St., La Vista, Quezon
City. He is also the owner of a house and lot located in Cebu City.  The
lot has an area of 3,327 square meters.
 Elizabeth Dima-ano, secretary ,clerk-typist ( January – November 1978 )
and alleged mistress of Gen. Ramas, recovered in her
residence , through a search warrant of illegal possession of firearms
the following : 1. Equipment, items and facile 2. Php 2.870 M and $
50,000 ( which WERE not declared in her S 3. Jewelries and Land Titles

ISSUES:
1. WHETHER OR NOT PCCG ( AFP-BOARD) HAS JURISDICTION TO
INVESTIGATE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AND CAUSE THE FILING OF A
FORFEITURE OF RESPONDENTS’ PROPERTIES.

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN DISMISSING

THE CASE BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF PRESENTATION OF
EVIDENCE.

3. WHETHER OR NOT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF THE

RESPONDENTS’ PROPERTIES CONSTITUTIONAL.

HELD:
ISSUE NO 1 : WHETHER OR NOT PCCG HAS JURISDICTION TO
INVESTIGATE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AND CAUSE THE FILING OF A
FORFEITURE OF RESPONDENTS’ PROPERTIES.

 NO.PCGG has no such jurisdiction. PCGG, through AFP-Board CAN

ONLY investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of AFP
 personnel ( in active service or retired) who fall under either of the two
categories mentioned in section 2 of Executive order number 1:
 The AFP personnel who have accumulated ill-gotten wealth during the
administration of former Marcos by being the latter’s immediate family,
relative, subordinate or close associate, taking under the advantage if
their public office using powers or influence.
 AFP personnel involved in other cases of graft and corruption provided
the President assigns their cases to the PCGG.
 SUPREME COURT held that Gen Ramas IS NOT “subordinate” of former
President Marcos in the sense contemplated under EO No. 1 and its
amendments.
 Mere position held by a military officer does not automatically make him
a “subordinate” as this term is used in EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A absent
a showing that he enjoyed close association with former President
Marcos.
 [T]he term “subordinate” as used in EO Nos. 1 & 2 refers to one who
enjoys a close association with former President Marcos and/or his
wife, similar to the immediate family member, relative, and close
associate in EO No. 1 and the close relative, business associate, dummy,
agent, or nominee in EO No. 2.
 Ramas’ position alone as Commanding General of the Philippine Army
with the rank of Major General [ does not suffice to make him a
“subordinate” of former President Marcos for purposes of EO No. 1 and
its amendments.  
 PCGG failed to present PRIMA FACIE evidence showing that Ramas was
a close associate of former President Marcos.

ISSUE NO 2 : WHETHER OR NOT THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN

DISMISSING THE CASE BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF PRESENTATION OF
EVIDENCE.
• Case has been pending for FOUR YEARS before Sandiganbayan
dismissed it.

• Sandiganbayan DID NOT err in dismissing the case before completion of

the presentation of evidence, the petitioner’s inability to produce the
evidence and witnesses needed were the long standing issues.

ISSUE NO 3 : WHETHER OR NOT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF THE

RESPONDENTS’ PROPERTIES ‘LEGAL’ ( NOT CONSTITUTIONAL) .
• NOT LEGAL. The warrant did not include the monies, communications
equipment, jewelry and land titles that the raiding team confiscated.

• Even if the there was NO Constitution, thus no BILL OF RIGHTS

protecting the individual during the time of seizure, the International
covenant on Civil and Political rights and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights remained in effect.

• No vested Constitutional rights (Bill of Rights) since 1973 Constitution

was not operative.
• Technically no Constitution from February 25 – March 25. Freedom
Constitution took effect March 25, 1986 only, the seizure was March 5,
1986.

• During the interregnum, the government in power was concededly a

revolutionary government bound by no constitution.  No one could
validly question the sequestration orders as violative of the Bill of Rights
because there was no Bill of Rights during the
interregnum.  However, upon the adoption of the Freedom Constitution,
the sequestered companies assailed the sequestration orders as contrary
to the Bill of Rights of the Freedom Constitution.

• Directives and orders of the government were the Supreme Law ( by
virtue of Proclamation No. 1 announcing that President Aquino and Vice
President Laurel were “taking power in the name and by the will of the
Filipino people)

• Petitioner asserted: therefore, the government may confiscate the monies

and items taken from Dimaano and use the same in evidence against her
since at the time of their seizure, private respondents did not enjoy any
constitutional right.

• The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de

jure government, assumed responsibility for the State’s good faith
compliance with the Covenant to which the Philippines is a
signatory.  Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory State “to
respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to
its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant.”   Under
Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had the duty
to insure that “[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful
interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.”

• The Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a signatory, provides in

its Article 17(2) that “[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
property.” 

• Although the signatories to the Declaration did not intend it as a

legally binding document, being only a declaration, the Court has
interpreted the Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles
of international law and binding on the State. Thus, the revolutionary
government was also obligated under international law to observe the
rights of individuals under the Declaration.