Biraogo V Philippine Truth Commission

BIRAOGO V PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION
FACTS:
For consideration before the Court are two consolidated cases both of which essentially assail the
validity and constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1, dated July 30, 2010, entitled “Creating the Philippine
Truth Commission of 2010”.
The nature of the Truth Commission 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 previous administration, thereafter
to submit its finding and recommendations to the President, Congress, and Ombudsman. It is essentially
an entity within the Office of the President Proper and subject to his control. PTC shall have all the powers
of investigative body under Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987.
It shall only gather, collect and assess evidence of graft and corruption and make
recommendations. It has no power to cite people in contempt, much less order the arrest. It cannot impose
criminal, civil, or administrative penalties or sanctions.
The marching order of PTC is the identification and punishment of perpetrators (which is the
difference from other Truth Commissions which emphasize on reconciliation than on judicial retribution).
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.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the petitioners have the legal standing to file their respective petitions and question
Executive Order No. 1;
2. Whether or not Executive Order 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;
3. Whether or not Executive Order No. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman and the DOJ;
4. Whether or not Executive Order No. 1 violates equal protection clause
RULING:
1. YES. The petitioners have legal standing.

Their petition primarily involves usurpation of the power of the Congress as a body to which
they belong as members. Indeed, legislators have a legal standing to see to it that the prerogative,
powers, and privileges vested by the Constitution in their office remain inviolate. They are allowed
to question the validity of any office action which, to their mind, infringes on their prerogatives as
legislators.
Biraogo, in his tax payer capacity, has locus standi, because this is of transcendental
importance of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest. The standing
requirements (should be personal and substantial) can be relaxed and a suit may be allowed to
prosper even where there is no direct injury to the part claiming the right of judicial review.
2. YES. It is violative of the Separation of Powers principle by creating a public office

The question, therefore, before the Court is this: Does the creation of the PTC fall within the
ambit of the power to reorganize as expressed in Section 31 of the Revised Administrative Code?
Section 31 contemplates “reorganization” as limited by the following functional and structural lines:
1) Restructuring the internal organization of the Office of the President Proper by abolishing,
consolidating, or merging units thereof or transferring function from one unit to another; 2)
Transferring any function under the OP to any Department/Agency or vice versa; 3) Transferring
any agency under OP to any other Department/Agency or vice versa.
Clearly, the provision refers to reduction of personnel, consolidation of officer, or abolition
thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of function. There should ALREADY EXIST a body
or an office, but a modification or alteration thereof has to be effected. The creation of office
is nowhere mentioned, much less envisioned in said provision. The answer to the question
above is in the NEGATIVE (the creation of PTC DOES NOT fall within the ambit of power to
reorganize as expressed in Section 31 of the Revised Administrative Code). Evidently, PTC
was not part of the structure of the OP prior to the enactment of EO 1.
The PTC creation is not justified by the President’s power of control. Control is essentially the
power to alter, or modify, or nullify, or set aside what subordinate officer had done in the
performance of his duties and 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 former is
inherent in the Executive, while the latter is found from a valid delegation from Congress.
The Court declines to recognize PD 1416 as a valid delegation from the Congress and as a
justification for the President to create a public office. The said decree is already stale,
anachronistic, and inoperable. It was a delegation to then President Marcos of the authority to
reorganize the administrative structure of the national government including the power to create
offices and transfer appropriations pursuant to one of the purposes of the decree. It was repealed
upon the creation of the 1987 Constitution.
The creation of the PTC finds justification under Section 17, Article 7 of the Constitution,
imposing the duty to ensure that laws are faithfully executed. “The President shall have control of
all the Executive Departments, Bureaus, and Offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed. 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 does not mean that he is
bereft of such authority. The powers of the President are not limited to those specific powers under
the Constitution. He has the power to create ad hoc committees to ascertain that laws have been
faithfully executed.
It should be stressed that 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. In addition, there is no appropriation of funds for the said
PTC, but only an allocation of the budget given to the Office of the President.
3. NO. PTC does not supplant the power of the Ombudsman and the DOJ.
Fact-finding is not adjudication and it cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of
justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or office. The function of receiving evidence and
ascertaining therefrom the facts of the controversy is not a judicial function. It may well compliment
those two offices. The recommendation to prosecute is but a consequence of the overall task of
the commission to conduct a fact-finding investigation. The actual prosecution of suspected
offenders, much less adjudication on the merits of charges against them is certainly not a function
given to the commission.
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. At any rate, the Ombudsman’s
power to investigate under RA 6770 is not exclusive but is shared with other similarly authorized
government agencies.
The DOJ’s authority under Section 3 (2), Chapter 1, Title III. Book IV in the Revised
Administrative Code is by no means exclusive and, thus, can be shared with a body likewise tasked
to investigate the commission of crimes.
It is nowhere in the EO 1 can it be inferred that the findings of the PTC are to be accorded
conclusiveness. Much like its predecessors, the Davide Commission, Feliciano Commission,
Zeñarosa Commission, its findings would, at best, be recommendatory in nature. Ombudsman and
DOJ have wider degree of latitude to decide whether or not to reject the recommendation.
4.

Biraogo V Philippine Truth Commission

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biraogo V Philippine Truth Commission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BIRAOGO V PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION

1. YES. The petitioners have legal standing.

2. YES. It is violative of the Separation of Powers principle by creating a public office

You might also like