Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission [December 7, 2010]

By •

G.R. No. 192935 – LOUIS “BAROK” C. BIRAOGO, petitioner, vs. THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010, respondent.

G.R. No. 193036 – REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, REP. RODOLFO B. ALBANO, JR., REP. SIMEON A. DATUMANONG, and REP. ORLANDO B. FUA, SR., petitioners, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR. and DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD, respondents.

MENDOZA, J.

Rule synopsis

The creation of a fact-finding body to investigate cases of graft and corruption falls within the power of the president, pursuant to its obligation to faithfully execute the laws. However, to focus such fact-finding to the acts of the past administration violates the equal protection.

Facts

Prior to May 2010 Elections Benigno Simeon Aquino declared war against graft and corruption; by this he won the Presidential race of 2010. To carry out the war against graft and corruption, he created the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) by EO No. 1. PTC is a fact-finding body, and is an ad hoc body created under the Office of the President the primary task of which is to investigate reports of graft and corruption committed by third-level public officers and employees and agents during the previous administration. It is vested with the investigative bodies under the Administrative Code but it is not quasi-judicial body.

The PTC can: gather, collect and assess evidence of graft and corruption and make recommendations.

However, the PTC cannot: adjudicate or resolve issues, cite people in contempt, cause arrest, determine from facts gathered if probable cause exist to warrant filing of information before the Courts, impose criminal, civil penalties and administrative sanctions.

The petitioners argued that the PTC is unconstitutional because:

  • It arrogates power of the Congress to create a public office and appropriate funds for its operation;
  • The power delegated under Sec. 31 of the Admin Code does not legitimize EO No. 1 as it does not grant the creation of office as the PTC;
  • It illegally amended the Constitution by vesting with it quasi-judicial powers duplicating or superseding the Office of the Ombudsman;
  • Violates the equal protection clause for selectively targeting the previous administration;
  • Violates the generally accepted principles of international law where Truth Commissions were solely created for investigating human rights violation
  • It is an exercise in futility;
  • The fact that previous commissions are not challenged does not bar raising questions of constitutionality.

Issues

  1. Do petitioners have legal standing?
  2. Does the creation of the PTC fall within the ambit of the power to reorganize as expressed in Section 31 of the Revised Administrative Code?
  3. Does the creation of an office fall within the President’s power of control?
  4. Is there a valid delegation from Congress?
  5. Was there a Violation of the principle of separation of powers by usurping the powers of Congress to create and to appropriate funds for public offices, agencies and commissions?
  6. Was there a supplanting of the powers of the Ombudsman and the DOJ?
  7. Was there a violation of the equal protection clause?

Ruling and Discussion

  1. No. Biraogo has no legal standing. Meanwhile, the petitioners-legislators have legal standing.

    As to Biraogo. For a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of an executive or legislative action, he must show that he has sustained a direct injury as a result of that action, and it is not sufficient that he has a general interest common to all members of the public.

    The direct injury test requires that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result. (Vera Doctrine)

    While Biraogo has no legal standing, the issue raised is of transcendental importance not only to the public but also to the Bench and the Bar, they should be resolved for the guidance of all.

    As to the petitioners-legislators. Legislators have a legal standing to see to it that the prerogative, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in their office remain inviolate. Thus, they are allowed to question the validity of any official action which, to their mind, infringes on their prerogatives as legislators.

    Their petition primarily invokes usurpation of the power of the Congress as a body to which they belong as members.
  2. No. The creation of the PTC does not fall within the ambit of the power to reorganize as expressed in Section 31 of the Revised Administrative Code.

    The provision refers to reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. The power to create offices is not granted.

    The President’s power to conduct investigations (investigative power of the President) to aid him in ensuring the faithful execution of laws [VII(17)]— 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. (faithful execution clause)
  3. No. The creation of an office does not fall within 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. While control is inherent in the executive function, creation of an office has to be delegated.

    Although there is no express grant to the President of the power to create a public office, he may do so in aid of fulfilling his constitutional mandate of ensuring the faithful execution of the laws.
  4. No. There is no valid delegation from Congress.

    PD 1416, as amended cited by the OSG is not inoperative.

    It 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 pursuant to one of the purposes of the decree. As provided, the transition towards the parliamentary form of government will necessitate flexibility in the organization of the national government. The grant of power is intended for transition to parliamentary form of government where the executive and legislative powers are fused. The specific provision then is rendered ineffective anymore upon the adoption of the 1987 Constitution.

    In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof. [VI(23;2)]. Delegation of legislative power to President is limited in said instances above and subject to further restrictions as may be provided by the Congress, through law. There is also a specific expiration of the delegated power, which shall cease upon the next adjournment.
  5. No. There was no violation of the principle of separation of powers by usurping the powers of Congress to create and to appropriate funds for public offices, agencies and commissions.

    Justification is found in Sec. 17, Art. VII of the Constitution, imposing upon the President the duty to ensure that all laws are faithfully executed. It carries with it the power to create bodies that will aid him in the performance of such task. There is also no appropriation but merely allotment of the funds already appropriated.
  6. No. There was no a supplanting of the powers of the Ombudsman and the DOJ.

    Quasi-judicial powers involve the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by law itself in enforcing and administering the same law.

    It is exclusively vested in the judiciary, in case of administrative agencies, it must be clearly authorized the by the legislature.

    PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or the DOJ or erode their respective powers. It is a fact-finding body, not a quasi-judicial body. It does not have the power to settle controversies, at most, its findings are recommendatory. Its task is to investigate on issues of graft and corruption of the previous administration to aid the President in ensuring the faithful execution of the laws.
  7. Yes. By singling out the previous administration, there is apparent transgression of the equal protection clause.

    Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.

    Universal application of law, however is not required. What is required is equality among equals. Classification is permitted but such classification must pass the reasonableness test. The reasonableness 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.

Dispositive

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.

Scroll to Top