DIGEST:

FACTS:
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1 WAS ISSUED BY PRESIDENT NOYNOY AQUINO TO INVESTIGATE REPOR
TED CASES OF GRAFT AND CORRUPTION OF THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION.
ISSUE:
IS THIS LEGAL?
RULING:
NO. IT IS VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. THE ARROYO ADMINISTRATION IS
BUT JUST A MEMBER OF A CLASS, THAT IS, A CLASS OF PAST ADMINISTRATIONS. IT IS N
OT A CLASS OF ITS OWN. NOT TO INCLUDE PAST ADMINISTRATIONS SIMILARLY SITUATED CO
NSTITUTES ARBITRARINESS WHICH THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE CANNOT SANCTION.
The ruling of the Court:
Applying these precepts to this case, Executive Order No. 1 should be struck dow
n as violative of the equal protection clause. The clear mandate of the envisio
ned truth commission is to investigate and find out the truth concerning the repo
rted cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration [1][87] only
. The intent to single out the previous administration is plain, patent and mani
fest. Mention of it has been made in at least three portions of the questioned
executive order. Specifically, these are:
WHEREAS, there is a need for a separate body dedicated solely to investigating a
nd finding out the truth concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption d
uring the previous administration, and which will recommend the prosecution of t
he offenders and secure justice for all;
SECTION 1. Creation of a Commission. There is hereby created the PHILIPPINE TRUT
H COMMISSION, hereinafter referred to as the COMMISSION, which shall primarily see
k and find the truth on, and toward this end, investigate reports of graft and c
orruption of such scale and magnitude that shock and offend the moral and ethica
l sensibilities of the people, committed by public officers and employees, their
co-principals, accomplices and accessories from the private sector, if any, dur
ing the previous administration; and thereafter recommend the appropriate action
or measure to be taken thereon to ensure that the full measure of justice shall
be served without fear or favor.
SECTION 2. Powers and Functions. The Commission, which shall have all the powers
of an investigative body under Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of the Administrat
ive Code of 1987, is primarily tasked to conduct a thorough fact-finding investi
gation of reported cases of graft and corruption referred to in Section 1, invol
ving third level public officers and higher, their co-principals, accomplices an
d accessories from the private sector, if any, during the previous administratio
n and thereafter submit its finding and recommendations to the President, Congre
ss and the Ombudsman. [Emphases supplied]
In this regard, it must be borne in mind that the Arroyo administration is but j
ust a member of a class, that is, a class of past administrations. It is not a c
lass of its own. Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitu
tes arbitrariness which the equal protection clause cannot sanction. Such discr
iminating differentiation clearly reverberates to label the commission as a vehi
cle for vindictiveness and selective retribution.
Though the OSG enumerates several differences between the Arroyo administration
and other past administrations, these distinctions are not substantial enough to
merit the restriction of the investigation to the previous administration only.
The reports of widespread corruption in the Arroyo administration cannot be take
n as basis for distinguishing said administration from earlier administrations w
hich were also blemished by similar widespread reports of impropriety. They are
not inherent in, and do not inure solely to, the Arroyo administration. As Justi
ce Isagani Cruz put it, Superficial differences do not make for a valid classific

ation. [2][88]
The public needs to be enlightened why Executive Order No. 1 chooses to limit th
e scope of the intended investigation to the previous administration only. The
OSG ventures to opine that to include other past administrations, at this point,
may unnecessarily overburden the commission and lead it to lose its effectivenes
s. [3][89] The reason given is specious. It is without doubt irrelevant to the leg
itimate and noble objective of the PTC to stamp out or end corruption and the evi
l it breeds. [4][90]
The probability that there would be difficulty in unearthing evidence or that th
e earlier reports involving the earlier administrations were already inquired in
to is beside the point. Obviously, deceased presidents and cases which have alre
ady prescribed can no longer be the subjects of inquiry by the PTC. Neither is t
he PTC expected to conduct simultaneous investigations of previous administratio
ns, given the body s limited time and resources.
The law does not require the impo
ssible (Lex non cogit ad impossibilia).[5][91]
Given the foregoing physical and legal impossibility, the Court logically recogn
izes the unfeasibility of investigating almost a century s worth of graft cases.
However, the fact remains that Executive Order No. 1 suffers from arbitrary clas
sification. 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 a
uthority to investigate all past administrations. While reasonable prioritizati
on is permitted, it should not be arbitrary lest it be struck down for being unc
onstitutional. In the often quoted language of Yick Wo v. Hopkins,[6][92]
Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if a
pplied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand
, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons i
n similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice i
s still within the prohibition of the constitution. [Emphasis supplied]
It could be argued that considering that the PTC is an ad hoc body, its scope is
limited. The Court, however, is of the considered view that although its focus
is restricted, the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the laws
should not in any way be circumvented. The Constitution is the fundamental and p
aramount law of the nation to which all other laws must conform and in accordanc
e with which all private rights determined and all public authority administered
.[7][93] Laws that do not conform to the Constitution should be stricken down fo
r being unconstitutional.[8][94] While the thrust of the PTC is specific, that i
s, for investigation of acts of graft and corruption, Executive Order No. 1, to
survive, must be read together with the provisions of the Constitution. To excl
ude the earlier administrations in the guise of substantial distinctions would onl
y confirm the petitioners lament that the subject executive order is only an adven
ture in partisan hostility. In the case of US v. Cyprian,[9][95] it was written:
A rather limited number of such classifications have routinely been held or assu
med to be arbitrary; those include: race, national origin, gender, political act
ivity or membership in a political party, union activity or membership in a labo
r union, or more generally the exercise of first amendment rights.
To reiterate, in order for a classification to meet the requirements of constitu
tionality, it must include or embrace all persons who naturally belong to the cl
ass.[10][96] Such a classification must not be based on existing circumstances on
ly, or so constituted as to preclude additions to the number included within a c
lass, but must be of such a nature as to embrace all those who may thereafter be
in similar circumstances and conditions. Furthermore, all who are in situation
s and circumstances which are relative to the discriminatory legislation and whi
ch are indistinguishable from those of the members of the class must be brought
under the influence of the law and treated by it in the same way as are the memb
ers of the class. [11][97]
The Court is not unaware that mere underinclusiveness is not fatal to the validit
y of a law under the equal protection clause. [12][98] Legislation is not unconstit
utional merely because it is not all-embracing and does not include all the evil
s within its reach. [13][99] It has been written that a regulation challenged unde
r the equal protection clause is not devoid of a rational predicate simply becau

se it happens to be incomplete.[14][100] In several instances, the underinclusiv

eness was not considered a valid reason to strike down a law or regulation where
the purpose can be attained in future legislations or regulations. These cases
refer to the step by step process.[15][101] With regard to equal protection claims
, a legislature does not run the risk of losing the entire remedial scheme simpl
y because it fails, through inadvertence or otherwise, to cover every evil that
might conceivably have been attacked. [16][102]
In Executive Order No. 1, however, there is no inadvertence. That the previous
administration was picked out was deliberate and intentional as can be gleaned f
rom the fact that it was underscored at least three times in the assailed execut
ive order. It must be noted that Executive Order No. 1 does not even mention an
y particular act, event or report to be focused on unlike the investigative comm
issions created in the past. The equal protection clause is violated by purposefu
l and intentional discrimination. [17][103]
To disprove petitioners contention that there is deliberate discrimination, the O
SG clarifies that the commission does not only confine itself to cases of large
scale graft and corruption committed during the previous administration.[18][104
] The OSG points to Section 17 of Executive Order No. 1, which provides:
SECTION 17. Special Provision Concerning Mandate. If and when in the judgment of
the President there is a need to expand the mandate of the Commission as define
d in Section 1 hereof to include the investigation of cases and instances of gra
ft and corruption during the prior administrations, such mandate may be so exten
ded accordingly by way of a supplemental Executive Order.
The Court is not convinced. Although Section 17 allows the President the discr
etion to expand the scope of investigations of the PTC so as to include the acts
of graft and corruption committed in other past administrations, it does not gu
arantee that they would be covered in the future. Such expanded mandate of the
commission will still depend on the whim and caprice of the President. If he wo
uld decide not to include them, the section would then be meaningless. This will
only fortify the fears of the petitioners that the Executive Order No. 1 was cra
fted to tailor-fit the prosecution of officials and personalities of the Arroyo
administration. [19][105]
The Court tried to seek guidance from the pronouncement in the case of Virata v.
Sandiganbayan,[20][106] that the PCGG Charter (composed of Executive Orders Nos.
1, 2 and 14) does not violate the equal protection clause. The decision, however
, was devoid of any discussion on how such conclusory statement was arrived at,
the principal issue in said case being only the sufficiency of a cause of action
.
A final word
The issue that seems to take center stage at present is
whether or not the Supre
me Court, in the exercise of its constitutionally mandated power of Judicial Rev
iew with respect to recent initiatives of the legislature and the executive depa
rtment, is exercising undue interference. Is the Highest Tribunal, which is exp
ected to be the protector of the Constitution, itself guilty of violating fundam
ental tenets like the doctrine of separation of powers? Time and again, this iss
ue has been addressed by the Court, but it seems that the present political situ
ation calls for it to once again explain the legal basis of its action lest it c
ontinually be accused of being a hindrance to the nation s thrust to progress.
The Philippine Supreme Court, according to Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 C
onstitution, is vested with Judicial Power that includes the duty of the courts o
f justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally dema
ndable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave o
f abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the government.
Furthermore, in Section 4(2) thereof, it is vested with the power of judicial re
view which is the power to declare a treaty, international or executive agreemen
t, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or reg
ulation unconstitutional. This power also includes the duty to rule on the const
itutionality of the application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamat
ions, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations. These provisions,

however, have been fertile grounds of conflict between the Supreme Court, on on
e hand, and the two co-equal bodies of government, on the other. Many times the
Court has been accused of asserting superiority over the other departments.
To answer this accusation, the words of Justice Laurel would be a good source of
enlightenment, to wit: And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutiona
l boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it
does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only as
serts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to det
ermine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish f
or the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures
and guarantees to them. [21][107]
Thus, the Court, in exercising its power of judicial review, is not imposing its
own will upon a co-equal body but rather simply making sure that any act of gov
ernment is done in consonance with the authorities and rights allocated to it by
the Constitution. And, if after said review, the Court finds no constitutional
violations of any sort, then, it has no more authority of proscribing the action
s under review. Otherwise, the Court will not be deterred to pronounce said act
as void and unconstitutional.
It cannot be denied that most government actions are inspired with noble intenti
ons, all geared towards the betterment of the nation and its people. But then ag
ain, it is important to remember this ethical principle: The end does not justify
the means. No matter how noble and worthy of admiration the purpose of an act, b
ut if the means to be employed in accomplishing it is simply irreconcilable with
constitutional parameters, then it cannot still be allowed.[22][108] The Court
cannot just turn a blind eye and simply let it pass. It will continue to uphold
the Constitution and its enshrined principles.
The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this la
w. Expediency must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power debase
its rectitude. [23][109]
Lest it be misunderstood, this is not the death knell for a truth commission as
nobly envisioned by the present administration. Perhaps a revision of the execu
tive issuance so as to include the earlier past administrations would allow it t
o pass the test of reasonableness and not be an affront to the Constitution. Of
all the branches of the government, it is the judiciary which is the most intere
sted in knowing the truth and so it will not allow itself to be a hindrance or o
bstacle to its attainment. It must, however, be emphasized that the search for
the truth must be within constitutional bounds for ours is still a government of
laws and not of men. [24][110]
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. Executive Order
No. 1 is hereby decla
red UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it is violative of the equal protection clause o
f 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.