LAGMAN VS OCHOA

Facts: They questioned what is the basis, what is the

legal authority to sustain the creation of this
commission by the president.
Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (PTC) dated July 30, 2010
with the primary task to investigate reports of graft and corruption committed by third-level public officers
and employees.

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.”

(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

Held:
The creation of the Phil. Truth Commission as an adhoc body under EO 1 finds basis in Sec. 17, Art. Vll (Const.)
imposing on President the duty to ensure that laws are faithfully executed. PTC is not borne out of a
restructuring of the O.P. under Sec. 31 Bk. lll EO 292. Power of control is different from power to create a
public office. The former is inherent in the Executive, while the latter has basis from either a valid delegation
from Congress or his inherent duty to faithfully execute the laws. The President’s power to conduct
investigations to aid him in ensuring faithful execution of laws is inherent in the President’s power as Chief
Executive.

LAGMAN VS OCHOA
Facts: They questioned what is the basis, what is the
legal authority to sustain the creation of this
commission by the president.
Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (PTC) dated July 30, 2010
with the primary task to investigate reports of graft and corruption committed by third-level public officers
and employees.

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.”

(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

Held:
The creation of the Phil. Truth Commission as an adhoc body under EO 1 finds basis in Sec. 17, Art. Vll (Const.)
imposing on President the duty to ensure that laws are faithfully executed. PTC is not borne out of a
restructuring of the O.P. under Sec. 31 Bk. lll EO 292. Power of control is different from power to create a
public office. The former is inherent in the Executive, while the latter has basis from either a valid delegation
from Congress or his inherent duty to faithfully execute the laws. The President’s power to conduct
investigations to aid him in ensuring faithful execution of laws is inherent in the President’s power as Chief
Executive.