10.

BIRAOGO VS PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION

FACTS: PTC was promulgated under EO no. 1 by President Aquino. The Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) is a
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. Furthermore, EO no.1 also provides that to accomplish PTCs task, it shall
have all the powers of an investigative body under Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987.

Barely a month after the issuance of Executive Order No. 1, the petitioners asked the Court to declare it
unconstitutional and to enjoin the PTC from performing its functions. They argued, among others, that 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.

ISSUE: Whether or not PTC is vested with Quasi-Judicial powers?

RULING: No quasi-judicial powers have been vested in the said body as it cannot adjudicate rights of persons who
come before it.

It has been said that "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." In simpler terms, judicial discretion is involved in the exercise of these quasi-judicial
power, such that it is exclusively vested in the judiciary and must be clearly authorized by the legislature in the case
of administrative agencies.

Therefore, PTC is not a quasi-judicial body as it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle, or render awards in
disputes between contending parties. All it can do is gather, collect and assess evidence of graft and corruption and
make recommendations. It may have subpoena powers but it has no power to cite people in contempt, much less
order their arrest. Although it is a fact-finding body, it cannot determine from such facts if probable cause exists as
to warrant the filing of an information in our courts of law. Needless to state, it cannot impose criminal, civil or
administrative penalties or sanctions.