Biraogo v.

Philippine Truth Commission (2010)

G.R. No. 192935 and G.R. No. 193036, December 7, 2010

Facts: President Aquino signed Executive Order No. 1 (EO1) creating the Philippine
Truth Commission. The Truth Commission is an ad hoc body with the power to
investigate reported cases of graft and corruption involving higher ranking officials of
the Arroyo administration. The investigative powers of the Truth Commission include
fact-finding and assessment of evidence of graft and corruption and then making
recommendations. However, it does not have the power to determine whether probable
cause exists as to file an information in court. It also does not have the powers of a
quasi-judicial body, it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle or render awards,
nor can it cite people in contempt or order an arrest.

This case was a consolidation of two cases, one instituted by Louis Biraogo as a
citizen and taxpayer; while other case was instituted by Edcel Lagman, Rodolfo
Albano, Jr. and Simeon Datumanong, all of whom are members of the House of
Representatives. The petitioners questioned the constitutionality of Executive Order
No. 1 and the creation of the Truth Commission on several grounds. It is argued that
(1) the EO1 violates the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative
Departments regarding the creation of public offices and allocation of funds, and (2)
that EO1 is unconstitutional for superseding the quasi-judicial functions of the
Ombudsman, and (3) that EO1 violates the equal protection clause as it specifically
targets graft and corruption reports during the Arroyo Administration.

Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on the other hand, refuted these
arguments by stating that the creation of the Truth Commission falls within the
President’s executive power and control, as the creation of a fact-finding body is
necessary in assisting the President in the performance of his administrative functions
to enforce laws. rather it is included in the President’s power to reorganize the Office.
Moreover, the OSG insisted that the Truth Commission does not duplicate or
supersede the quasi-judicial functions of the Office of the Ombudsman because it is
merely a fact-finding body. The OSG also counter-argued that EO1 does not violate the
equal protection clause because it was created for “laudable” purposes.

Issue: Did Executive Order No. 1 violate the equal protection clause?

Ruling: Yes. Executive Order No. 1 transgressed the equal protection clause. E.O. 1
clearly does not apply equally to all members of the same class such that the intent of
singling out the "previous administration" of Arroyo. According to a long line of
decisions, equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated
should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It
requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a
similar manner. Equal protection clause does not require the universal application of
the laws to all persons but it requires equality among equals as determined according
to a valid classification. There is valid classification if it passed 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.

Applying these 4 requisites, Executive Order No. 1 should be struck down as

violative of the equal protection clause because the clear mandate of the truth
commission is to investigate and find out the truth "concerning the reported cases of
graft and corruption during the previous administration" only. Hence, the intent to
single out the previous administration is plain, patent and manifest. It must be borne
in mind that the 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. To not include past
administrations that are similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which violates the
equal protection clause. In order for a classification to meet the requirements of
constitutionality, it must include or embrace all persons who naturally belong to the
class. Hence, 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. Thus, Executive Order No. 1 is unconstitutional since it is violate the equal
protection clause of the Constitution.