Biraogo v PTC – Delegation of Congressional Powers
GR 192935 & 193036 / December 7, 2010 / Mendoza / Jules
Petioner: Louis “Barok” Biraogo
Respondent: The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010
Petitioners: Re. Edcel Lagman, Rep. Rodolfo Albano, Rep.
Simeon Datumanong, Rep. Orlando Fua, Sr.
Respondents: Exec. Sec. Paquito Ochoa, Jr., DBM Sec.
Florencio Abad
Recitation Summary:
1. Creation of the Truth Commission
After a month in office, President Benigno Aquino III
issued Executive Order No. 1 (E.O. 1) on July 30, 2010 creating
the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC). The PTC was tasked to
conduct a thorough fact-finding investigation of reported cases
of graft and corruption involving third level public officers
during the administration of Aquino's predecessor Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, and thereafter submit its findings and
recommendations to the Office of the President, Congress, and
the Ombudsman.
2. The Petitions
Private citizen Louis Biraogo and a group of
congressmen led by Lakas Kampi CMD chairman Rep. Edcel
Lagman filed in the Supreme Court separate petitions for
certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of E.O.
3. The Petitioners’ Allegations
Petitioners based on their belief that the creation of the PTC:
a) constitutes usurpation of the legislative power to create
public office,
b) threatens the independence of the Office of the
Ombudsman, and
c) violates the equal protection clause of the Philippine
Constitution for specifically targeting certain officials of
the Arroyo administration.
4. Locus Standi
a) Legislators have standing because they claim that
the prerogatives of Congress are usurped and they are
members of Congress.
b) Biraogo technicality does not have standing but the
issue is of paramount importance.
5. Substantial Issue #1
a) Whether the president can create public office such
as the PTC without usurping the powers of Congress;
b) YES.
c) The purpose of ad hoc investigating bodies such as
the PTC is to allow an inquiry into matters which the president
is entitled to know so that he can be properly advised and
guided in the performance of his duties relative to the
execution and enforcement of the laws of the land.
5. Substantial Issue #2
a) Whether the PTC supplants the powers already
vested on the Ombudsman and the DOJ
b) NO.
c) The Court also held that the investigative function
of the commission will not supplant nor threaten the
independence of the Office of the Ombudsman. If at all, it will
complement the functions of the Ombudsman and the
Department of Justice. As correctly pointed out by the OSG,
the function of the PTC is merely to recommend prosecution,
which is just a consequence of its fact-finding investigation.
The actual prosecution of suspected offenders, much less
adjudication on the merits of the charges against them, is
certainly not a function given to the PTC.
6. Substantial Issue #3
a) Whether the purpose of the PTC transgresses the
constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
b) YES.
c) The PTC is tasked only to investigate on officials of
the Arroyo government.
7. Ruling
a) The petitions are GRANTED.
b) Executive Order No. 1 is hereby declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it is violative of
the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Facts:
1. Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine
Truth Commission of 2010 (PTC) dated July 30, 2010.
2. 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 to
submit its finding and recommendations to the President,
Congress and the Ombudsman.
3. PTC has all the powers of an investigative body, but it is
not a quasi-judicial body as it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate,
resolve, settle, or render awards in disputes between
contending parties.
4. All it can do is gather, collect and assess evidence of graft
and corruption and make recommendations.
5. It may have subpoena powers but it has no power to cite
people in contempt, much less order their arrest.
6. 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.
7. Petitioners asked the Court to declare it unconstitutional
and to enjoin the PTC from performing its functions. They
argued that:
(a) E.O. No. 1 violates separation of powers as it arrogates
the power of the Congress to create a public office and
appropriate funds for its operation.
(b) 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.”
(c) E.O. No. 1 illegally amended the Constitution and
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 DOJ created under the Administrative
Code of 1987.
(d) 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.
8. Respondents, through OSG, questioned the legal standing
of petitioners and argued that:
a) E.O. No. 1 does not arrogate the powers of Congress
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
and that, in any event, the Constitution, Revised
Administrative Code of 1987, PD No. 141616 (as
amended), R.A. No. 9970 and settled jurisprudence,
authorize the President to create or form such bodies.
b) 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.
c) The Truth Commission does not duplicate or supersede
the functions of the Ombudsman and the 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.
d) The Truth Commission does not violate the equal
protection clause because it was validly created for
laudable purposes.
ISSUES:
1. WON the petitioners have legal standing to file the petitions
and question E. O. No. 1; YES
1. The power of judicial review is subject to
limitations, to wit:
(a) there must be an actual case or controversy calling
for the exercise of judicial power;
(b) the person challenging the act must have the
standing to question the validity of the subject act or
issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal
and substantial interest in the case such that he has
sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of
its enforcement;
(c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at
the earliest opportunity; and
(d) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis
mota of the case.
2. The petition primarily invokes usurpation of the
power of the Congress. The petitioners are members of
Congress. If the powers of Congress are impaired, then so is
the power of each member thereof, since his office confers a
right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that
institution.
3. 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.
4. With regard to Biraogo, he has not shown that he
sustained, or is in danger of sustaining, any personal and direct
injury attributable to the implementation of E. O. No. 1.
5. Locus standi is “a right of appearance in a court of
justice on a given question.” In private suits, standing is
governed by the “real-parties-in interest” rule. It provides that
“every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of
the real party in interest.” Real-party-in interest is “the party
who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.”
6. Difficulty of determining locus standi arises in public
suits. Here, the plaintiff who asserts a “public right” in assailing
an allegedly illegal official action, does so as a representative of
the general public. He has to show that he is entitled to seek
judicial protection. He has to make out a sufficient interest in
the vindication of the public order and the securing of relief as
a “citizen” or “taxpayer.
7. 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.”
The Court, however, finds reason in Biraogo’s assertion that
the petition covers matters of transcendental importance to
justify the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. There are
constitutional issues in the petition which deserve the
attention of this Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and
weight as precedents
2. WON E. O. No. 1 violates the principle of separation of
powers by usurping the powers of Congress to create and to
appropriate funds for public offices, agencies and commissions;
NO
1. The Executive is given much leeway in ensuring that
our laws are faithfully executed. The powers of the
President are not limited to those specific powers
under the Constitution. One of the recognized powers
of the President granted pursuant to this
constitutionally-mandated duty is the power to create
ad hoc committees. This flows from the obvious need
to ascertain facts and determine if laws have been
faithfully executed. The purpose of allowing ad hoc
investigating bodies to exist is to allow an inquiry
into matters which the President is entitled to know
so that he can be properly advised and guided in the
performance of his duties relative to the execution
and enforcement of the laws of the land.
2. There will be no appropriation but only an allotment
or allocations of existing funds already appropriated.
There is no usurpation on the part of the Executive of
 the power of Congress to appropriate funds. There is
no need to specify the amount to be earmarked for
the operation of the commission because, whatever
funds the Congress has provided for the Office of the
President will be the very source of the funds for the
commission. The amount that would be allocated to
the PTC shall be subject to existing auditing rules and
regulations so there is no impropriety in the funding.
3. WON E. O. No. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman
and the DOJ; NO
PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or the DOJ or erode
their respective powers. If at all, the investigative function of
the commission will complement those of the two offices. The
function of determining probable cause for the filing of the
appropriate complaints before the courts remains to be with
the DOJ and the Ombudsman. PTC’s power to investigate is
limited to obtaining facts so that it can advise and guide the
President in the performance of his duties relative to the
execution and enforcement of the laws of the land.
4. WON E. O. No. 1 violates the equal protection clause. YES
1. Court finds difficulty in upholding the constitutionality
of Executive Order No. 1 in view of its apparent
transgression of the equal protection clause enshrined
in Section 1, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987
Constitution.
2. Equal protection requires that all persons or things
similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to
rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It
requires public bodies and institutions to treat
similarly situated individuals in a similar manner. The
purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure
every person within a state’s jurisdiction against
intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether
occasioned by the express terms of a statue or by its
improper execution through the state’s duly
constituted authorities.
mandate of 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.
6. Arroyo administration is but just a member of a class,
that is, a class of past administrations. It is not a class
of its own. Not to include past administrations
similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the
equal protection clause cannot sanction. Such
discriminating differentiation clearly reverberates to
label the commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness
and selective retribution. Superficial differences do
not make for a valid classification.
7. The PTC must not exclude the other past
administrations. The PTC must, at least, have the
authority to investigate all past administrations.
8. The Constitution is the fundamental and paramount
law of the nation to which all other laws must
conform and in accordance with which all private
rights determined and all public authority
administered. Laws that do not conform to the
Constitution should be stricken down for being
unconstitutional.
RULING:
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.
Majority: 10 – Corona, Velasco, Leonardo-De Castro, Brion,
Peralta, Del Castillo, Bersamin, Villarama,Perez, Mendoza
Dissent: 5 – Carpio, Carpio Morales, Nachura, Abad, Sereno

3. There must be equality among equals as determined

according to a valid classification. Equal protection
clause permits classification. Such classification,
however, to be valid must pass the test of
reasonableness. The test has four requisites:
(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) It applies equally to all members of the same class.

4. The classification will be regarded as invalid if all the

members of the class are not similarly treated, both as
to rights conferred and obligations imposed.

5. Executive Order No. 1 should be struck down as

violative of the equal protection clause. The clear