Biraogo vs.

The Philippine Truth Commission

G.R. No. 192935
December 7, 2010

FACTS: The petitioner, Louis “Barok”C. Biraogo, is a taxpayer who filed a petition with the
Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC). The
PTC was created by Executive Order No. 1 creating the Philippine Truth Commission of
2010, which was issued by President Benigno Aquino III on July 8, 2010.
The purpose of the PTC was to investigate human rights violations and crimes against
humanity committed during the Marcos regime. The petitioner argued that the President
does not have the power to create the PTC without usurping the powers of Congress. The
petitioner reasoned that the creation of the PTC is a legislative function, and that Congress
has the exclusive power to create public offices.

The respondents, the Philippine Truth Commission and its members, argued that the
President has the power to create the PTC under his power of control over all executive
offices. The respondents also argued that the PTC is not a public office, but rather an
adjunct body of the Office of the President.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner’s right to equal protection of the laws has been violated.
RULING: NO. The Court finds difficulty in upholding the constitutionality of
Executive Order No. 1 in view of its apparent transgression of the equal
protection clause enshrined in Section 1, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the
1987Constitution.
Equal protection 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.
The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person within a state’s
jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the
express terms of a statue or by its improper execution through the state’s duly constituted
authorities. There must be equality among equals as determined according to a valid
classification. Equal protection clause permits classification.
Such classification, however, to be valid must pass the test of reasonableness. The test
hasfour 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.
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 Executive Order No.
1 should be struck down as violative of the equal protection clause. 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. 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 clausecannot sanction. Such discriminating differentiation clearly reverberates
to label the commission as a vehicle forvindictiveness 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. The Constitution is the fundamental
and paramount law of the nation to which all other laws must conform and in accordance
with which all private rights determined and all public authority administered. Laws that do
not conform to the Constitution should be stricken down for being unconstitutional

In order for a classification

In the case at bar,

to meet the requirements of

constitutionality, it must include
or
embrace all persons who
naturally belong to the class.
"Such a classification must not
be based
on existing circumstances only,
or so constituted as to preclude
additions to the number
included within a class, but must
be of such a nature as to embrace
all those who may
thereafter be in similar
circumstances and conditions.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. 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
In order for a classification
In the case at bar,

to meet the requirements of

constitutionality, it must include
or
embrace all persons who
naturally belong to the class.
"Such a classification must not
be based
on existing circumstances only,
or so constituted as to preclude
additions to the number
included within a class, but must
be of such a nature as to embrace
all those who may
thereafter be in similar
circumstances and conditions.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. 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
.