8/24/22, 5:39 PM G.R. No. 192935 & G.R. No.

193036

and powers of the Office of the Ombudsman and/or the Department of Justice, as will be discussed in detail later.
How can the creation of a new commission with the same duplicative functions as those of already existing offices
result in economy or a more efficient bureaucracy?19 Such a creation becomes even more questionable considering
that the 1987 Constitution itself mandates the Ombudsman to investigate graft and corruption cases.20

The Truth Commission in the Light of The Equal Protection Clause

Equal protection is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
reads:

... nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

It is a right afforded every man. The right to equal protection does not require a universal application of the laws to
all persons or things without distinction.21 It requires simply that all persons or things similarly situated should be
treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.22

In certain cases, however, as when things or persons are different in fact or circumstance, they may be treated in
law differently.23 In Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union,24 the Court declared:

The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows classification. Classification in law, as in the other
departments of knowledge or practice, is the grouping of things in speculation or practice because they agree with
one another in certain particulars. A law is not invalid because of simple inequality. The very idea of classification is
that of inequality, so that it goes without saying that the mere fact of inequality in no manner determines the matter
of constitutionality. All that is required of a valid classification is that it be reasonable, which means that the
classification should be based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences, that it must be germane to
the purpose of the law; that it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and that it must apply equally to each
member of the class. This Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the classification or distinction is based on
a reasonable foundation or rational basis and is not palpably arbitrary.

Thus, for a classification to be valid it must pass the test of reasonableness,25 which requires that:

(1) it be based on substantial distinctions;

(2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law;

(3) it must not be limited to present conditions; and

(4) it must apply equally to all members of the same class.

All four requisites must be complied with for the classification to be valid and constitutional.

The constitutionality of E. O. No. 1 is being attacked on the ground that it violates the equal protection clause.

Petitioners argue that E.O. No. 1 violates the equal protection clause as it deliberately vests the Truth Commission
with jurisdiction and authority to solely target officials and employees of the Arroyo Administration.26 Moreover, they
claim that there is no substantial distinction of graft reportedly committed under the Arroyo administration and graft
committed under previous administrations to warrant the creation of a Truth Commission which will investigate for
prosecution officials and employees of the past administration.27

Respondents, on the other hand, argue that the creation of the Truth Commission does not violate the equal
protection clause. According to them, while E.O. No. 1 names the previous administration as the initial subject of the
investigation, it does not confine itself to cases of graft and corruption committed solely during the past
administration. Section 17 of E.O. No. 1 clearly speaks of the President’s power to expand its coverage to previous
administrations. Moreover, respondents argue that the segregation of the transactions of public officers during the
previous administration as possible subjects of investigation is a valid classification based on substantial distinctions
and is germane to the evils which the executive order seeks to correct.28

On its face, E.O. No. 1 clearly singles out the previous administration as the Truth Commission’s sole subject of
investigation.

Section 1. Creation of a Commission – There is hereby created the PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION, hereinafter
referred to as the "COMMISSION", which shall primarily seek and find the truth on, and toward this end, investigate
reports of graft and corruption of such scale and magnitude that shock and offend the moral and ethical sensibilities
of the people committed by public officers and employees, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories from the
private sector, if any during the previous administration; and thereafter recommend the appropriate action to be
taken to ensure that the full measure of justice shall be served without fear or favor.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_192935_2010.html 23/156