LOUIS "BAROK" C. BIRAOGO vs.

THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010

G.R. No. 192935 and G.R. No. 193036 | 2010-12-07
G.R. No. 192935, a special civil action for prohibition instituted by petitioner Louis Biraogo
(Biraogo) in his capacity as a citizen and taxpayer. Biraogo assails Executive Order No. 1
for being violative of the legislative power of Congress under Section 1, Article VI of the
Constitution as it usurps the constitutional authority of the legislature to create a public
office and to appropriate funds therefor.
Executive Order No. 1 - establishing the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (Truth
Commission) - mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of the President 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, and thereafter to submit its finding and recommendations to the President,
Congress and the Ombudsman. Though it has been described as an "independent collegial
body," it is essentially an entity within the Office of the President Proper and subject to his
control. Doubtless, it constitutes a public office, as an ad hoc body is one.
Petitioners-legislators contentions:
1. E.O. No. 1 violates the separation of powers as it arrogates the power of the Congress
to create a public office and appropriate funds for its operation.
2. 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."
3. E.O. No. 1 illegally amended the Constitution and pertinent 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
Department of Justice created under the Administrative Code of 1987.
4. 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.
5. The creation of the "Philippine Truth Commission of 2010" violates the consistent and
general international practice of four decades wherein States constitute truth
commissions to exclusively investigate human rights violations, which customary
practice forms part of the generally accepted principles of international law which the
Philippines is mandated to adhere to pursuant to the Declaration of Principles
enshrined in the Constitution.
6. The creation of the "Truth Commission" is an exercise in futility, an adventure in
partisan hostility, a launching pad for trial/conviction by publicity and a mere populist
propaganda to mistakenly impress the people that widespread poverty will altogether
vanish if corruption is eliminated without even addressing the other major causes of
poverty.
7. The mere fact that previous commissions were not constitutionally challenged is of
no moment because neither laches nor estoppel can bar an eventual question on the
constitutionality and validity of an executive issuance or even a statute.
OSG contentions:
1.

E.O. No. 1 does not arrogate the powers of Congress to create a public office
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

2. E.O. No. 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
3. The Truth Commission does not duplicate or supersede the functions of the Office of
the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) and the Department of Justice (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.
4. The Truth Commission does not violate the equal protection clause because
it was validly created for laudable purposes.
a. E.O. No. was issued in view of widespread reports of large scale graft and
corruption in the previous administration which have eroded public confidence in
public institutions.
b. The segregation of the preceding administration as the object of fact-finding is
warranted by the reality that unlike with administrations long gone, the current
administration will most likely bear the immediate consequence of the policies of
the previous administration.
c. The classification of the previous administration as a separate class for
investigation lies in the reality that the evidence of possible criminal activity, the
evidence that could lead to recovery of public monies illegally dissipated, the
policy lessons to be learned to ensure that anti-corruption laws are faithfully
executed, are more easily established in the regime that immediately precede the
current administration.
d. Many administrations subject the transactions of their predecessors to
investigations to provide closure to issues that are pivotal to national life or even
as a routine measure of due diligence and good housekeeping.
HELD:
1. Power of the President to Create the Truth Commission
a. No Power in Reorganization - Section 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.
b. No Delegation of Power - P.D. No. 1416 was a delegation to then President
Marcos of the authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the national
government including the power to create offices and transfer appropriations.
c. Power to create the Ad hoc Investigating Committee - the President has the
obligation to ensure that all executive officials and employees faithfully comply
with the law.
2. Power of the Truth Commission to Investigate not adjudicate
a. PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or the DOJ or erode their respective powers
- investigative function of the commission will complement those of the two
offices. These offices, therefore, are not deprived of their mandated duties but will
instead be aided by the reports of the PTC for possible indictments for violations
of graft laws.
b. Findings of the PTC are NOT conclusiveness - its findings would, at best, be
recommendatory in nature. Ombudsman and the DOJ have a wider degree of
latitude to decide whether or not to reject the recommendation.
3. Violative of Equal Protection Clause:
a. Executive Order No. 1 clear mandate of the envisioned 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.
b. Classification to meet the requirements of constitutionality, it must include or
embrace all persons who naturally belong to the class.

4.

Discriminatory - Arroyo administration is but just a member of a class of past

administrations. Not to include past administrations similarly situated
constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protection clause cannot sanction.
Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification - the reports of
widespread corruption in the Arroyo administration cannot be taken as basis
for distinguishing said administration from earlier administrations which were
also blemished by similar widespread reports of impropriety.
That the previous administration was picked out was deliberate and
intentional - underscored at least three times in the assailed executive order.
Fact remains that Executive Order No. 1 suffers from arbitrary classification.
The PTC, to be true to its mandate of searching for the truth, must not exclude
the other past administrations. The PTC must, at least, have the authority to
investigate all past administrations.
To exclude the earlier administrations in the guise of "substantial distinctions"
would only confirm the petitioners' lament that the subject executive order is
only an "adventure in partisan hostility."

Executive Order No. 1 - UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it is violative of the

equal protection clause of the Constitution.