Biraogo vs.

The Philippine Truth Commission (2010)

Summary Cases:

● Louis "Barok" Biraogo vs. The Philippine Truth Commission

Subject: Requisites for the exercise of Judicial Review; Locus Standi (Direct Injury Test and
Transcendental Importance); Power to create a new office is not included in the power to reorganize;
Power to create a new office is not covered under the President’s power of control; Executive Powers of
the President not limited to those specifically mentioned in the Constitution; No appropriation but merely
an allotment of existing funds; Investigative power vs. Adjudicative power; EO1 violated the equal
protection clause by singling out the Arroyo Administration

Facts: President Aquino signed Executive Order No. 1 (EO1) creating the Philippine Truth Commission.
The Truth Commission is an ad hoc body with the power to investigate reported cases of graft and
corruption involving third level public officials and higher ranking officials of the Arroyo administration.
The investigative powers of the Truth Commission include fact-finding and assessment of evidence of
graft and corruption and then making recommendations. However, it does not have the power to
determine whether probable cause exists as to file an information in court. It also does not have the
powers of a quasi-judicial body, that is, it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle or render awards,
nor can it cite people in contempt or order an arrest.

This case was a consolidation of two cases, one instituted by Louis Biraogo as a citizen and taxpayer;
while other case was instituted by Edcel Lagman, Rodolfo Albano, Jr. and Simeon Datumanong, all of
whom are members of the House of Representatives. The petitioners questioned the constitutionality of
Executive Order No. 1 and the creation of the Truth Commission on several grounds. It is argued that (1)
the EO1 violates the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative Departments regarding
the creation of public offices and allocation of funds, and (2) that EO1 is unconstitutional for superseding
the quasi-judicial functions of the Ombudsman, and (3) that EO1 violates the equal protection clause as
it specifically targets graft and corruption reports during the Arroyo Administration.

The OSG, on the other hand, refuted these arguments by stating that the creation of the Truth
Commission falls within the President’s executive power and control, as the creation of a fact-finding
body is necessary in assisting the President in the performance of his administrative functions to enforce
laws. The OSG further argued that the creation of a fact-finding commission such as a truth commission
is not legislative per se, rather it is included in the President’s power to reorganize the Office. Moreover,
the OSG insisted that the Truth Commission does not duplicate or supersede the quasi-judicial functions
of the Office of the Ombudsman because it is merely a fact-finding body. The OSG also counter-argued
that EO1 does not violate the equal protection clause because it was created for “laudable” purposes.
The OSG also questioned the legal standing of the petitioners to question the Order.

Held:

Requisites for the exercise of Judicial Review

1. The power of judicial review over an act or issuance may be exercised by the courts when
there is a) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; b) the person
challenging the act must have standing to question the validity of the act or issuance, that is, if
the person stands to be benefitted or injured as a result of the enforcement of the law; c) the
question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and d) the
constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

| Page 1 of 3
Locus Standi (Direct Injury Test and Transcendental Importance)

2. A person has locus standi to impugn the validity of a statute upon meeting the “direct injury
test”. That is, a person must have “a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he
has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result.”

3. The Court held that the petitioners have legal standing. The legislators-petitioners have a legal
standing to “see to it that the prerogative, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution” to
the Congress are not violated.”

4. Mr. Biraogo was likewise held to have legal standing. The direct injury test can be relaxed
when the matter is of “transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of a
paramount public interest.” A matter is of transcendental importance in view of its seriousness,
novelty and weight.

Power to create a new office is not included in the power to reorganize

5. The power to create an office is not included in the power to reorganize. The President’s power
to reorganize is limited to “a) restructuring the internal organization of the Office of the President
by abolishing, consolidating or merging units thereof or transferring functions from one unit or
another; b) transferring any function under the Officer of the President to any other Department
or Agency, or vice versa; or 3) transferring any agency under the Office of the President to any
other Department/Agency or vice versa. The power to reorganize includes a modification of an
office that already exists; not a creation of a completely new office.

Power to create a new office is not covered under the President’s power of control

6. The power of control is the power to “alter or modify or nullify or set aside” an act done by a
subordinate officer and substitute the judgment of the person of power with the judgment of the
subordinate. This power does not contemplate the creation of an office.

Executive Powers of the President not limited to those specifically mentioned in the Constitution

7. The powers of the President are not limited to those specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
While the President inherently has the power to reorganize and the power of control, the power to
create offices is not. Considering that the President has the duty to ensure that the laws of the
land are faithfully executed, thus, he possesses the necessary powers to fulfill that duty. The
President necessarily has the power to create ad hoc committees that can aid in the enforcement
of the laws of the land.

No appropriation but merely an allotment of existing funds

8. The Court held that there will be no appropriation but merely an allotment of existing funds
already appropriated for the Executive Department.

Investigative power vs. Adjudicative power

9. The Truth Commission is a fact-finding body. It does not possess quasi-judicial powers, hence,
it will not supplant the Ombudsman or the DOJ. It has the power to investigate, but not the power
to adjudicate. The power to investigate means to explore, inquire or probe into a specific matter
while the power to adjudicate means to adjudge, decide, resolve, rule on and settle.
| Page 2 of 3
EO1 violated the equal protection clause by singling out the Arroyo Administration

10. Equal protection does not mean the universal application of laws on all persons and things. It
leaves room for classification as long as such classification meets the following: a) the
classification rests on substantial distinctions; b) it is germane to the purpose of the law; c) it is
not limited to existing conditions only; and d) applies equally to all members of the same class.

11. The Court held that EO1 violated the equal protection clause by singling out the Arroyo
Administration. While the Arroyo administration had differences with other past administrations,
the distinctions are not substantial. Singling out the Arroyo Administration also violates the third
requirement, that it must apply equally to all members of a similar class.

| Page 3 of 3