Biraogo vs.

PTC of 2010

 EO 1- signed by Pres. Aquino

 PTC- ad hoc ad hoc body formed under the Office of the President

-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.

-powers of an investigative body.

- 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

Pet. Contention- 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.

EO1 violates EPC? YES!

 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.
 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:

1) The classification rests on substantial distinctions;
(2) It is germane to the purpose of the law;
(3) It is not limited to existing conditions only; and
(4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.
 COMELEC vs. Conrado Cruz, et.al. , ( 2009)
- a review of the RTC’s decision granting the petition of the respondents on declaring
Section 2 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9164 (entitled An Act Providing for Synchronized
Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections, amending RA No. 7160, as amended,
otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991) unconstitutional:
- Sec. 2. Term of Office. The term of office of all barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan
officials after the effectivity of this Act shall be three (3) years.No barangay elective official
shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms in the same position: Provided, however,
That the term of office shall be reckoned from the 1994 barangay elections.
- Voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which the elective official was
elected.
-some of the then incumbent officials of several barangays of Caloocan City filed with
the RTC a petition for declaratory relief to challenge the constitutionality of the above-
highlighted pro-viso, based on the following arguments:
1. The term limit of Barangay officials should be applied prospectively and not
retroactively.
2. Implementation of paragraph 2 Section 2 of RA No. 9164 would be a violation of the
equal protection of the law.
SC affirmed the constitutionality of Section 2, paragraph 2 of Republic Act No. 9164:

1.) No retroactive application was made because the three-term limit has been there all
along as early as the second barangay law (RA No. 6679-changed the two-term limit by
providing for a three-consecutive term limit). after the 1987 Constitution took effect; it was
continued under the LGC and can still be found in the current law.

2.) No. The equal protection guarantee under the Constitution is found under its Section
2, Article III, which provides: Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Essentially, the equality guaranteed under this clause is equality under the same conditions
and among persons similarly situated. It is equality among equals, not similarity of treatment
of persons who are different from one another on the basis of substantial distinctions related
to the objective of the law; when things or persons are different in facts or circumstances,
they may be treated differently in law

No equal protection violation can exist under these conditions. From another perspective, we
see no reason to apply the equal protection clause as a standard because the challenged proviso
did not result in any differential treatment between barangay officials and all other elective
officials.
Jose Miguel Arroyo vs. Department of Justice, et. al., ( 2013)

-COMELEC and the DOJ issued a Joint Order creating and constituting a Joint Committee and
Fact-Finding Team on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections electoral fraud and manipulation
cases.
In its Initial Report of the Fact-Finding Team concluded that manipulation on the results in the
May 14, 2007 senatorial elections in the provinces of North and South Cotabato, and
Maguindanao was indeed perpetrated. It recommended that petitioner Benjamin S. Abalos,
GMA, and Mike Arroyo be subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage and
manipulating the election results
1. Petitions and supplemental petitions are DISMISSED and the Fact-Finding Teams Initial
Report dated October 20, 2011 are declared VALID. However, the Rules of Procedure on the
Conduct of Preliminary Investigation on the Alleged Election Fraud in the 2004 and 2007
National Elections is declared INEFFECTIVE for lack of publication.

2. The Joint Panel and the proceedings having been conducted in accordance with Rule 112 of
the Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rule 34 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the conduct of
the preliminary investigation is hereby declared VALID.

Issues:
1.)Whether or not the creation of the Joint Panel undermines the decisional independence of
the COMELEC.
2.)Whether or not the DOJ should conduct preliminary investigation only when deputized by the
COMELEC but not exercise concurrent jurisdiction
Held:
1.) The creation of the Joint Committee of COMELEC and the DOJ does not undermine the
independence of the COMELEC as a constitutional body because it is still the COMELEC that
ultimately determines probable cause in accordance with the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

2.).The creation of a Joint Committee is not repugnant to the concept of “concurrent

jurisdiction” authorized by the amendatory law. The doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction means
equal jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter. There is no prohibition on simultaneous
exercise of power between two coordinate bodies. What is prohibited is the situation where
one files a complaint against a respondent initially with one office (such as the COMELEC) for
preliminary investigation which was immediately acted upon by said office and the re-filing of
the same complaint with another office (such as the DOJ). The subsequent assumption of
jurisdiction by the second office over cases filed will not be allowed. Indeed, it is a settled rule
that the body or agency that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction
to the exclusion of the others. Hence, DOJ can exercise concurent jurisdiction with COMELEC
and not only to conduct preliminary investigation when deputized by said office other elective
officials.
20b.) Republic vs. Daisy Yahon (2014)
-Daisy R. Yahon (respondent) filed a petition for the issuance of protection order
under the provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262Vawc against her husband, S/Sgt.
Charles A. Yahon
-A TemporaryProtection Order (TPO) has been issued against Sgt. Yahon to protect the
respondent from further abuses. Yahon was ordered to provide reasonable financial spousal
support to the respondent.
-In his failure to appear before the court with a counsel and with an answer to the charges
against him, the court has granted Permanent Protection Order (PPO) for the respondent against
Sgt. Yahon
. -However, the Armed Forces of the Philippines Finance Center contented that half of the
retirement benefits of Sgt. Yahon cannot be given to the respondent as it is from a military
institution.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner military institution may be ordered to automatically deduct a
percentage from the retirement benefits of its enlisted personnel, and to give the same directly to
the latter's lawful wife as spousal support in compliance with a protection order issued by the
RTC pursuant to R.A. No. 9262
-A protection order is an order issued by the court to prevent further acts of violence
against women and their children, their family or household members, and to grant other
necessary relief. Its purpose is to safeguard the offended parties from further harm, minimize
any disruption in their daily life and facilitate the opportunity and ability to regain control of
their life. The protection orders issued by the court may be a Temporary Protection Order (TPO)
or a Permanent Protection Order (PPO), while a protection order that may be issued by the
barangay shall be known as a Barangay Protection Order (BPO).
- Court has already ruled that R.A. No. 9262 is constitutional and does not violate the equal
protection clause
-R.A. No. 9262 rests on real substantial distinctions which justify the classification under the
law: the unequal power relationship between women and men; the fact that women are
more likely than men to be victims of violence; and the widespread bias and prejudice
against women.(Garcia vs. Drilon)The court further explained in Garcia that the classification
is germane to the purpose of the law, viz:The distinction between men and women is germane
to the purpose of R.A. 9262, which is to address violence committed against women and
children, spelled out in its Declaration of Policy, as follows:SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is
hereby declared that the State values the dignity of women and children and guarantees full
respect for human rights. The State also recognizes the need to protect the family and its
members particularly women and children, from violence and threats to their personal safety and
security.Towards this end, the State shall exert efforts to address violence committed against
women and children in keeping with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the
Constitution and the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Convention on the Rights of
the Child and other international human rights instruments of which the Philippines is a party.