G.R. No.

192935               December 7, 2010

LOUIS "BAROK" C. BIRAOGO

vs.
THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010,

FACTS:

At the dawn of his administration, President Benigno Simeon Aquino III, on July
30, 2010, signed Executive Order No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010 (Truth Commission).

Petitioner Louis Biraogo, in his capacity as a citizen and taxpayer, assails EO 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.

A special civil action for certiorari and prohibition was likewise filed by petitioners
Edcel C. Lagman,et al. (petitioners-legislators) as incumbent members of the
House of Representatives.

As can be gleaned from the provisions of the EO, the Philippine Truth
Commission (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 thereafter
to submit its finding and recommendations to the President, Congress and the
Ombudsman.

Though it has been described as an “independent collegial body,” it is essentially

an entity within the Office of the President Proper and subject to his control.
Doubtless, it constitutes a public office, as an ad hoc body is one.

Biraogo asserts that the Truth Commission is a public office and not merely an
adjunct body of the Office of the President. Thus, in order that the President may
create a public office he must be empowered by the Constitution, a statute or an
authorization vested in him by law.

Similarly, in G.R. No. 193036, petitioners-legislators argue that the creation of a

public office lies within the province of Congress and not with the executive
branch of government.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Executive possesses the inherent authority to create fact-
finding committees to assist it in the performance of its constitutionally mandated
functions and in the exercise of its administrative functions.

RULING:

As correctly pointed out by the respondents, the allocation of power in the three
principal branches of government is a grant of all powers inherent in them.

The President’s power to conduct investigations to aid him in ensuring the faithful
execution of laws – in this case, fundamental laws on public accountability and
transparency – is inherent in the President’s powers as the Chief Executive.
That the authority of the President to conduct investigations and to create bodies
to execute this power is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or in statutes
does not mean that he is bereft of such authority.

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.

Thus, in Department of Health v. Camposano, the authority of the President to

issue A.O. No. 298, creating an investigative committee to look into the
administrative charges filed against the employees of the Department of Health
for the anomalous purchase of medicines was upheld. In said case, it was ruled:

The Chief Executive’s power to create the Ad hoc Investigating Committee

cannot be doubted. Having been constitutionally granted full control of the
Executive Department, to which respondents belong, the President has the
obligation to ensure that all executive officials and employees faithfully comply
with the law. xxx

It should be stressed that 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.