BIRAOGO v PHIL.

TRUTH COMMISSION

Topic: EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

<Romero,R.>

FACTS:

For consideration before the Court are two consolidated cases both of which essentially assail
the validity and constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1, dated July 30, 2010, entitled "Creating
the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010."

The first case is G.R. No. 192935, a special civil action for prohibition and the second case,
G.R. No. 193036, is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition.

To transform his campaign slogan into reality, President Aquino found a need for a special body
to investigate reported cases of graft and corruption allegedly committed during the previous
administration. Thus, he signed Executive Order No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010 (Truth Commission).

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.

PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENT:

They contend that the executive order violates the equal protection clause because 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.

They also argue that the search for truth behind the reported cases of graft and corruption must
encompass acts committed not only during the administration of former President Arroyo but
also during prior administrations where the "same magnitude of controversies and
anomalies" were reported to have been committed against the Filipino people. They assail the
classification formulated by the respondents as it does not fall under the recognized exceptions
because first, "there is no substantial distinction between the group of officials targeted for
investigation by Executive Order No. 1 and other groups or persons who abused their public
office for personal gain; and second, the selective classification is not germane to the purpose
of Executive Order No. 1 to end corruption." In order to attain constitutional permission, the
petitioners advocate that the commission should deal with "graft and grafters prior and
subsequent to the Arroyo administration with the strong arm of the law with equal force.

ISSUE:

4. Whether or not Executive Order No. 1 violates the equal protection clause?

HELD:

YES. EO1 violates the equal protection clause.

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. It, however, does not require the universal
application of the laws to all persons or things without distinction. What it simply requires is
equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. Indeed, the 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.

For a classification to meet the requirements of constitutionality, it must include or

embrace all persons who naturally belong to the 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. It is not necessary that the classification be made with absolute symmetry,
in the sense that the members of the class should possess the same characteristics in equal
degree. Substantial similarity will suffice; and as long as this is achieved, all those covered by
the classification are to be treated equally. The mere fact that an individual belonging to a class
differs from the other members, as long as that class is substantially distinguishable from all
others, does not justify the non-application of the law to him."
 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. The probability that there would be difficulty in unearthing evidence
or that the earlier reports involving the earlier administrations were already inquired into is
beside the point. Obviously, deceased presidents and cases which have already prescribed can
no longer be the subjects of inquiry by the PTC. Neither is the PTC expected to conduct
simultaneous investigations of previous administrations, given the body’s limited time and
resources. "The law does not require the impossible" (Lex non cogit ad impossibilia).Given the
foregoing physical and legal impossibility, the Court logically recognizes the unfeasibility of
investigating almost a century’s worth of graft cases. However, the fact remains that Executive
Order No. 1 suffers from arbitrary classification. The PTC, to be true to its mandate of searching
for the truth, must not exclude the other past administrations. The PTC must, at least, have the
authority to investigate all past administrations. While reasonable prioritization is permitted, it
should not be arbitrary lest it be struck down for being unconstitutional.

Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if applied and
administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make
unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their
rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the constitution.