Biraogo v.

Philippine Truth Commission

G.R. No. 192935 December 7, 2010
Mendoza, J.

Facts:
The genesis of the foregoing cases can be traced to the events prior to the historic
May 2010 elections, when then Senator Benigno Simeon Aquino III declared his
staunch condemnation of graft and corruption with his slogan, "Kung walang
corrupt, walang mahirap." The Filipino people, convinced of his sincerity and of his
ability to carry out this noble objective, catapulted the good senator to the
presidency.
The first case is G.R. No. 192935, a special civil action for prohibition instituted by
petitioner Louis Biraogo (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.
The second case, G.R. No. 193036, is a special civil action for certiorari and
prohibition filed by petitioners Edcel C. Lagman, Rodolfo B. Albano Jr., Simeon A.
Datumanong, and Orlando B. Fua, Sr. (petitioners-legislators) as incumbent
members of the House of Representatives.
Thus, at the dawn of his administration, the President on July 30, 2010, signed
Executive Order No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (Truth
Commission).
Issues:
1. Whether or not the petitioners have the legal standing to file their respective
petitions and question Executive Order No. 1;
2. Whether or not Executive Order 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. Whether or not Executive Order No. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman
and the DOJ;

4. Whether or not Executive Order No. 1 violates the equal protection clause; and
5. Whether or not petitioners are entitled to injunctive relief.
Held:
Legal Standing of the Petitioners
The Court, however, finds reason in Biraogos 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. Where the
issues are of transcendental and paramount importance not only to the public but
also to the Bench and the Bar, they should be resolved for the guidance of
all.Undoubtedly, the Filipino people are more than interested to know the status of
the Presidents first effort to bring about a promised change to the country. The
Court takes cognizance of the petition not due to overwhelming political undertones
that clothe the issue in the eyes of the public, but because the Court stands firm in
its oath to perform its constitutional duty to settle legal controversies with
overreaching significance to society.
Power of the President to Create the Truth Commission
The Chief Executives 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. 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.
Power of the Truth Commission to Investigate
The distinction between the power to investigate and the power to adjudicate was
delineated by the Court in Cario v. Commission on Human Rights.59 Thus:
The legal meaning of "investigate" is essentially the same: "(t)o follow up step by
step by patient inquiry or observation. To trace or track; to search into; to examine
and inquire into with care and accuracy; to find out by careful inquisition;
examination; the taking of evidence; a legal inquiry;" "to inquire; to make an
investigation," "investigation" being in turn described as "(a)n administrative
function, the exercise of which ordinarily does not require a hearing. 2 Am J2d Adm
L Sec. 257; x x an inquiry, judicial or otherwise, for the discovery and collection of

facts concerning a certain matter or matters."

In the legal sense, "adjudicate" means: "To settle in the exercise of judicial authority.
To determine finally. Synonymous with adjudge in its strictest sense;" and "adjudge"
means: "To pass on judicially, to decide, settle or decree, or to sentence or
condemn. x x. Implies a judicial determination of a fact, and the entry of a
judgment."
Finally, nowhere in Executive Order No. 1 can it be inferred that the findings of the
PTC are to be accorded conclusiveness. Much like its predecessors, the Davide
Commission, the Feliciano Commission and the Zenarosa Commission, its findings
would, at best, be recommendatory in nature. And being so, the Ombudsman and
the DOJ have a wider degree of latitude to decide whether or not to reject the
recommendation. 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.
Violation of the Equal Protection Clause
The petitioners assail Executive Order No. 1 because it is violative of this
constitutional safeguard. They contend that it does not apply equally to all members
of the same class such that the intent of singling out the "previous administration"
as its sole object makes the PTC an "adventure in partisan hostility." Thus, in order
to be accorded with validity, the commission must also cover reports of graft and
corruption in virtually all administrations previous to that of former President
Arroyo.
The equal protection clause is aimed at all official state actions, not just those of the
legislature. Its inhibitions cover all the departments of the government including the
political and executive departments, and extend to all actions of a state denying
equal protection of the laws, through whatever agency or whatever guise is taken.
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. Mention of it
has been made in at least three portions of the questioned executive order.
Decision
The issue that seems to take center stage at present is - whether or not the
Supreme Court, in the exercise of its constitutionally mandated power of Judicial
Review with respect to recent initiatives of the legislature and the executive

department, is exercising undue interference. Is the Highest Tribunal, which is

expected to be the protector of the Constitution, itself guilty of violating
fundamental tenets like the doctrine of separation of powers? Time and again, this
issue has been addressed by the Court, but it seems that the present political
situation calls for it to once again explain the legal basis of its action lest it
continually be accused of being a hindrance to the nations thrust to progress.
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.
As also prayed for, the respondents are hereby ordered to cease and desist from
carrying out the provisions of Executive Order No. 1.