ADMIN LAW Case Digest Prepared by: SOLLEGUE

21. | Biraogo v Philippine Truth Commission

TOPIC: Administrative Agencies – Powers of the President – Power to Create Public Office and Reorganize

SC EN BANC | G.R. No. 192935 & G.R. No. 193036 | December 7, 2010
Petitioner/s LOUIS "BAROK" C. BIRAOGO
REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, REP. RODOLFO B. ALBANO, JR., REP. SIMEON A.
DATUMANONG, and REP. ORLANDO B. FUA, SR.,
Respondent/s THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR. and DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD
Case Summary
PNOY signed EO 1 which created the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC), an ad hoc body aimed to investigate the
Arroyo administration’s alleged graft and corruption. Biraogo et al assail EO 1’s constitutionality, arguing among others
that the President is not empowered to create an ad hoc body such as a truth commission. SC ruled that the President
is empowered, consistent with his duty to ensure faithful execution of laws under the 1987 Constitution. However, EO
1 is still unconstitutional for violating EPC as sought to investigate only the Arroyo administration and not the other
previous administrations.

Doctrine: One of the recognized powers of the President granted pursuant to his/her constitutionally mandated duty
of ensuring faithful execution of the law is the power to create ad hoc committees.

FACTS:

● Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (PTC) dated July 30, 2010.
● NATURE OF THE PTC: PTC is a mere ad hoc body formed under the OP 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 (Arroyo), and to submit its finding and
recommendations to the President, Congress and the Ombudsman.
o PTC has all the powers of an investigative body. But it is not a quasi-judicial body as it cannot adjudicate,
arbitrate, resolve, settle, or render awards in disputes between contending parties. All it can do is gather,
collect and assess evidence of graft and corruption and make recommendations. It may have subpoena
powers but it has no power to cite people in contempt, much less order their arrest. Although it is a fact-
finding body, it cannot determine from such facts if probable cause exists as to warrant the filing of an
information in our courts of law.
● Biraogo et al asked the Court to declare EO 1 unconstitutional and to enjoin the PTC from performing its functions.
Among others, they argue that:
o 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.
o Book III, Chap 10, Sec 31 of the Admin Code cannot legitimize EO 1 because the delegated authority of
the President to structurally reorganize the OP 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.”
o EO 1 illegally amended the Constitution and statutes when it vested the “Truth Commission” with quasi-
judicial powers duplicating, if not superseding, those of the Office of the Ombudsman created under the
1987 Constitution and the DOJ created under the Admin Code
● PTC et al, through OSG, questioned the legal standing of petitioners and argued that:
o EO 1 does not arrogate the powers of Congress because the President’s executive power and power of
control necessarily include the inherent power to conduct investigations to ensure that laws are faithfully
executed and that, in any event, the Constitution, Admin Code, PD 1416 (as amended), RA 9970 and
jurisprudence, authorize the President to create or form such bodies.
o EO 1 does not usurp the power of Congress to appropriate funds because there is no appropriation but a
mere allocation of funds already appropriated by Congress.
o The Truth Commission does not duplicate or supersede the functions of the Ombudsman and the DOJ,
because it is a fact-finding body and not a quasi-judicial body and its functions do not duplicate, supplant
or erode the latter’s jurisdiction.

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUE # 1 HELD
WON the creation of the PTC fall within the ambit of the power to NO
reorganize under the Revised Admin Code

● Section 31 of the Revised Admin Code contemplates "reorganization" as limited by the following functional and
structural lines:
o 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;

Page 1 of 3
ADMIN LAW Case Digest Prepared by: SOLLEGUE
21. | Biraogo v Philippine Truth Commission
TOPIC: Administrative Agencies – Powers of the President – Power to Create Public Office and Reorganize
o transferring any function under the Office of the President to any other Department/Agency or vice versa;
or
o transferring any agency under the Office of the President to any other Department/Agency or vice versa.
● Sec 31 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 existent but a modification
or alteration thereof has to be effected. The creation of an office is nowhere mentioned, much less envisioned in
said provision.
● To say that the PTC is borne out of a restructuring of the OP under Section 31 is a misplaced supposition, even in
the plainest meaning attributable to the term "restructure"– an "alteration of an existing structure." Evidently, the
PTC was not part of OP’s structure of the OP prior to EO 1’s enactment
● Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v Hon Executive Secretary: Reorganization takes place when there is an alteration of
the existing structure of government offices or units therein, including the lines of control, authority and responsibility
between them.
o APPLICATION: PTC’s creation 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. Clearly, 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.
ISSUE # 2 HELD
WON the President is empowered to create an ad hoc office. YES

● Art VII, Sec 17, 1987 Constitution: The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and
offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
● As correctly pointed out by PTC/OSG, the allocation of power in the three principal branches of government is a
grant of all powers inherent in them. 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. That the authority of the President to conduct investigations and
to create bodies to execute this power is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or in statutes does not mean
that he is bereft of such authority.
● Marcos v Manglapus: although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of specific powers of the
President, it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of "executive power." Corollarily,
the powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution.
In other words, executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated.
● Application: One of the recognized powers of the President granted pursuant to this constitutionally-mandated
duty is the power to create ad hoc committees. This flows from the obvious need to ascertain facts and determine
if laws have been faithfully executed.

ISSUE # 3 HELD
WON EO 1 transgresses Congress’ power to appropriate funds for the NO
operation of public office

● 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, in the words
of the Solicitor General, "whatever funds the Congress has provided for the Office of the President will be the very
source of the funds for the commission."
● 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.

OTHER ISSUES [NOT HELD

RELATED TO TOPIC)
WON Biraogo et al had legal
standing
WON EO 1 supplants the
powers of the Ombudsman
and DOJ
YES. Basis is transcendental importance due to issues on EO 1’s constitutionality.
NO. PTC’s investigative function will complement those of the two offices. The function of
determining probable cause for the filing of the appropriate complaints before the courts remains
to be with the DOJ and the Ombudsman. PTC’s power to investigate is limited to obtaining facts
so that it can advise and guide the President in the performance of his duties relative to the
execution and enforcement of the laws of the land.

Fact-finding is not adjudication and it cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of
justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or office. The function of receiving evidence and
ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function. To be considered as
such, the act of receiving evidence and arriving at factual conclusions in a controversy must be
accompanied by the authority of applying the law to the factual conclusions to the end that the

Page 2 of 3
ADMIN LAW Case Digest Prepared by: SOLLEGUE
21. | Biraogo v Philippine Truth Commission
TOPIC: Administrative Agencies – Powers of the President – Power to Create Public Office and Reorganize
controversy may be decided or resolved authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to
appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law.

Power to investigate v power to adjudicate:

WON EO 1 violates the equal
protection clause
Investigate
Common to examine, explore, inquire or delve or
meaning probe into, research on, study;
Nowhere included or intimated is the
notion of settling, deciding or resolving
a controversy involved in the facts
inquired into by application of the law to
the facts established by the inquiry.
Legal "(t)o follow up step by step by patient
meaning 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. x x an inquiry, judicial
or otherwise, for the discovery and
collection of facts concerning a certain
matter or matters."
YES. The clear mandate of 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.
Adjudicate
to adjudge, arbitrate, judge, decide,
determine, resolve, rule on, settle.
The dictionary defines the term as
"to settle finally (the rights and
duties of the parties to a court case)
on the merits of issues raised: x x to
pass judgment on: settle judicially: x
x act as judge." And "adjudge"
means "to decide or rule upon as a
judge or with judicial or quasi-
judicial powers: x x to award or
grant judicially in a case of
controversy x x."
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."

Arroyo administration is but just a member of a class, that is, a class of past administrations. It is
not a class of its own. Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes
arbitrariness which the equal protection clause cannot sanction. Such discriminating
differentiation clearly reverberates to label the commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness and
selective retribution. Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification.

The PTC must not exclude the other past administrations. The PTC must, at least, have the
authority to investigate all past administrations.

RULING:
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.

SO ORDERED.

NOTES:
Concurring/dissenting opinions not included

Page 3 of 3