responsible for crimes against humanity; and (2) the
BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION
G.R. No. 192935 Date: December 7, 2010
Ponente: MENDOZA, J. Topic: Executive
Department
FACTS:
1. When President Aquino was elected back in the May
2010 elections, he had an anti-graft and corruption
slogan: “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap”
2. In order to manifest his slogan into reality, he created
an ad hoc body with full investigative powers via EO 1.
3. Said body was the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC),
which was essentially established to investigate cases of
graft and corruption committed during the previous
administration. What is it all about:
a. It has all the powers of an investigative body
under the Administrative Code of 1987 (Sec. 37,
Chap. 9, Book I);
b. It can gather, collect, and assess evidence of
graft of corruption;
c. It only gives conclusions and recommendations;
d. It is not a quasi-judicial body;
e. It cannot cite people in contempt;
f. It cannot order arrests;
g. It cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle, or
render awards in disputes; and
h. Basically, it cannot impose criminal, civil, or
administrative penalties or sanctions.
4. Furthermore on its nature, there are two (2) common
types of truth commissions around the world: (1) The
Retributory type which aims to punish those
Reconciliatory type which focuses more on victim
support.
a. In Aquino’s inaugural speech, he made it clear
that the PTC falls under the retributory type.
5. The Petitioners of the two consolidated cases herein are
Louis Biraogo (Biraogo) as a citizen and taxpayer, and
Edcel Lagman et al as members of the HoR. Both
petitions assail the constitutionality of PTC on the
following grounds:
a. It violates the separation of powers because it
created a public office and appropriated funds
for its operation which are both powers by the
Congress.
b. 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
such as the PTC.
c. E.O. No. 1 illegally amended the Constitution
and pertinent statutes when it vested the Truth
Commission with quasi-judicial powers which
duplicates or supersedes the powers of the
Ombudsman and the Department of Justice.
d. It violates the equal protection clause since it
selectively targets public officials of the
previous administration.
e. It violates the consistent and general
international practice of four decades wherein
States constitute truth commissions to
exclusively investigate human rights violations.
 f. The creation of PTC is a mere populist
propaganda.
RELEVANT CONSTI PROVISION: Sec. 17, Art. VII "The
President shall have control of all the executive departments,
bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed."
ISSUE/S: WON Executive Order No. 1 or the Truth
Commission is violative of the Constitution because:
a. Section 31 of the Administrative Code of 1987 which
grants the President the continuing authority to
reorganize his office can serve as basis for the creation
of a truth commission. NO.
b. The creation of the PTC is justified by the
President’s power of control. NO.
c. There is a valid delegation of power from Congress,
empowering the President to create a public office. NO.
d. It 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.
e. It duplicates or supersede the powers of the
Ombudsman and the DOJ. NO.
f. It violates the equal protection clause. YES.
RULING:
a. NO. The creation of an office is nowhere mentioned,
much less envisioned in said provision: “Section 31
contemplates reorganization and is limited by the
following functional and structural lines:
(1) restructuring the internal organization of the
Office of the President Proper by abolishing,
consolidating or merging units thereof or
transferring functions from one unit to another;
(2) transferring any function under the Office of
the President to any other Department/Agency
or vice versa; or
(3) transferring any agency under the Office of
the President to any other Department/Agency
or vice versa.”
It clearly refers to reduction of personnel, consolidation
of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or
redundancy of functions. These point to situations
where a body or an office is ALREADY EXISTING.
b. NO. The creation of the PTC is not justified by the
President’s power of control. Control is essentially the
power to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a
subordinate officer had done in the performance of his
duties and to substitute the judgment of the former with
that of the latter. The power of control is entirely
different from the power to create public offices. The
former is inherent in the Executive, while the latter
finds basis from either a valid delegation from
Congress, or his inherent duty to faithfully execute the
laws.
c. NO. According to the OSG, the power to create a truth
commission pursuant to the above provision finds
statutory basis under P.D. 1416, as amended by P.D.
No. 1772. The Court, however, declines to recognize
P.D. No. 1416 as a justification for the President to
create a public office. Said decree is already inoperable.
P.D. No. 1416 was a delegation to then President
Marcos of the authority to reorganize the administrative
structure of the national government including the
power to create offices and transfer appropriations
pursuant to one of the purposes of the decree, embodied
in its last Whereas clause:
WHEREAS, the transition towards the
parliamentary form of government will
necessitate flexibility in the organization of the
national government.
This law already became functus oficio upon the
convening of the First Congress, as expressly provided
in Section 6, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution.
However, the creation of the PTC was still valid
pursuant to the second sentence of Sec. 17, Art. VII of
the Constitution. This sentence is the faithful execution
clause of the President. The SC held that 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.
The powers to conduct investigations and create ad hoc
bodies are not explicit in the Constitution, however, the
SC has held time and time again that the powers of the
President are not limited to those mentioned in the
Constitution.
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.
d. NO. Since 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. 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. 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.
e. NO. PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or the DOJ
or erode their respective powers. The recommendation
to prosecute is but a consequence of the overall task of
the commission to conduct a fact-finding investigation.
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. Much like its predecessors, the Davide
Commission, the Feliciano Commission and the
Zenarosa Commission, its findings would, at best, be
recommendatory in nature. These offices, therefore, are
not deprived of their mandated duties but will instead
 be aided by the reports of the PTC for possible
indictments for violations of graft laws.

f. YES. The commission must also cover reports of graft

and corruption in virtually all administrations previous
to that of former President Arroyo. What this clause
simply requires is equality among equals according to a
valid classification which 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.

Based on the test, 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.