Case Title BIRAOGO v Truth Commission

G.R. no. G.R. No. 192935

Main Topic Equal Protection of Laws
Other Related Topic Taxation
Date: December 7, 2010

DOCTRINES
EQUAL PROTECTION
FACTS:
Case 1 : Louis Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010
Case 2: Rep. Edcel Lagman et al. vs. Executive Secretary Pacquito
Ochoa et al.
This case now is a consolidated petition decided by the Supreme
Court of the Philippines invalidating the creation of a truth
commission tasked to investigate a previous president.
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.
Private citizen Louis Biraogo and a group of congressmen led by Lakas
Kampi CMDchairman Rep. Edcel Lagman filed in the Supreme Court
separate petitions for certiorari and prohibition assailing the
constitutionality of E.O. 1 based on their belief that the creation of the
PTC constitutes usurpation of the legislative power to create public
office, threatens the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman, and
violates the equal protection clause of the Philippine Constitution for
specifically targeting certain officials of the Arroyo administration.
The main issues raised before the High Court were: (1) Whether the
president can create public office such as the PTC without usurping the
powers of Congress; (2) Whether the PTC supplants the powers already
vested on the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice (DOJ); and,
ISSUE:
MOST CONNECTED TO OUR TOPIC:
(3) Whether the purpose of the PTC transgresses the constitutional guarantee of equal
protection of the laws.
 HELD:
1. The president has the authority to create the Truth Commission.

Majority of the members of the Supreme Court rejected the justification of the
Solicitor General(OSG) that the creation of the PTC finds basis on the
president’s power of control over all executive offices. The Decision stressed
that “control” is essentially the power to alter, modify, 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. Clearly, the power
of control is entirely different from the power to create public offices. The
majority also rejected the OSG’s claim that the E.O. finds basis under sec. 31
of the Administrative Code, which authorizes the president to restructure the
Office of the President. Clearly, “restructure” under the said provision refers
to reduction of personnel, consolidation or abolition of offices by reason of
economy or redundancy. This presupposes an already existing office. The
creation of an office is nowhere mentioned, much less envisioned in said
provision.

Nonetheless, the ponencia agreed with the argument of the OSG that the
president’s power to create the PTC may find justification under the
president’s duty under sec. 17, Article VII of the Constitution “to ensure that
the laws be faithfully executed.” The Court held that while it is true 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, it does not necessarily mean that he does not have such authority. The
president has the obligation to ensure that all executive officials and
employees (whether from past or present administrations) faithfully comply
with the law. 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.

2. The PTC will not erode the powers or independence of the Ombudsman

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.
3. The purpose of the PTC offends the equal protection clause !!!

While the Court was almost unanimous in holding that the president indeed
had the authority to create the PTC and that it would not unduly duplicate the
powers of the Ombudsman, nine (9) of the justices joined Associate Justice
Jose Catral Mendoza in refusing to uphold the constitutionality of E.O. 1 in
view of its apparent transgression of the equal protection clause enshrined in
sec. 1, Art. III of the Constitution. Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio
was joined by four (4) others in their strong dissent. Laying down a long line
of precedents, the ponencia reiterated that equal protection simply requires
that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to
rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. The purpose of the equal
protection clause is to secure every person against intentional and arbitrary
discrimination. Applying this precept, the majority held that E.O. 1 should be
struck down as violative of the equal protection clause.

The Decision stressed that the clear mandate of the PTC 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. Mention of it has been made in at
least three portions of the questioned executive order. The Arroyo
administration, according to the ponencia, is 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 gave the
majority an impression that the PTC is just being used “as a vehicle for
vindictiveness and selective retribution” and that E.O. 1 is only an “adventure
in partisan hostility.” While the Court recognized that the creation of the PTC
was inspired with noble intentions, the ponencia nonetheless reminded the
government of the ethical principle that “the end does not justify the means.”
It emphatically closed by stressing that the search for the truth must be within
constitutional bounds, for “ours is still a government of laws and not of men.”