BIRAOGO VS PTC

FACTS:
To transform his campaign slogan into reality, President Aquino found a need for a special body to
investigate reported cases of graft and corruption allegedly committed during the previous administration.
As such he signed Executive Order No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (PTC).

The said PTC is a mere branch formed under the Office of the President tasked to investigate reports of
graft and corruption committed by third-level public officers and employees, their accomplices and
accessories during the previous administration and submit their findings and recommendations to the
President, Congress and the Ombudsman. However, PTC is not a quasi-judicial body, it cannot adjudicate,
arbitrate, resolve, settle or render awards in disputes between parties. Its job is to investigate, collect and
assess evidences gathered and make recommendations. It has subpoena powers but it has no power to cite
people in contempt or even arrest. It cannot determine for such facts if probable cause exist as to warrant
the filing of an information in our courts of law.

Petitioners contends the Constitutionality of the E.O. on the grounds that:

1. It violates separation of powers as it arrogates the power of Congress to create a public office and
appropriate funds for its operation;
2. The delegated authority of the President, as provided by Sec. 13 of the Admin. Code of 1987, to
structurally reorganize the Office of the President to achieve economy, simplicity, and efficiency
does not include the power to create an entirely new office was inexistent like the Truth
Commission;
3. The E.O illegally amended the Constitution when it made the Truth Commission and vesting it the
power duplicating and even exceeding those of the Office of the Ombudsman and the DOJ; and
4. It violates the equal protection clause.

Issue:
1. W/N E.O does not violate the separation of powers thus it is within the executive power of the
President. (YES)
a. W/N E.O 1 is justified by the Presidents power to reorganize under Sec. 31 of Revised
Administrative Code. (NO)
b. W/N E.O 1 is justified by the Presidents power of control. (NO)
c. W/N E.O 1 is justified by the Presidents duty to ensure that laws are faithfully
executed(Sec.17 Art 7 Const). (YES)
2. W/N the creation of PTC usurps the power of the Congress to appropriate funds for public offices
(NO)
3. W/N Executive Order No. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman and the DOJ;
4. W/N E. O. No. 1 violates the equal protection clause. (YES)
Held:
1. Yes, the E.O 1 is within the power of the President. Petitioners asserts that in order that the President
may create a public office he must be empowered by the Constitution, a statute or an authorization
vested in him by law. Since there is no provision in the Constitution or any specific law that
authorizes the President to create a truth commission, E.O 1 should be declared unconstitutional.
The SC answered this contention by discussing on what executive power of the President does the
creation of the Truth Commission falls.
a. First, the SC agree with the petitioner that Section 31 of the Administrative Code of 1987,
granting the President the continuing authority to reorganize his office, cannot serve as
basis for the creation of a truth commission because reorganization is limited only to
restructuring the internal organization of the Office of the President Proper by abolishing,
merging or transferring units or function from another office within the executive. These
point only to situations where a body or an office is already existent but a modification or
alteration thereof has to be effected. The creation of an office is nowhere mentioned,
much less envisioned in said provision. (NO)
b. Second, SC disagree with the respondent(OSG) that it is within the Presidents power of
control. Control is essentially the power to alter or modify or 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 former is inherent in the Executive, while the latter
finds basis from either a valid delegation from Congress, or his inherent duty to faithfully
execute the laws. (NO)
c. Third, SC agree with the respondent(OSG) that it is within the Presidents inherent duty to
faithfully execute the laws under Sec. 17, Art. VII of the Const.

Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and
offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. (Emphasis supplied).

The Presidents power to conduct investigations to aid him in ensuring the faithful execution
of laws in this case, fundamental laws on public accountability and transparency is inherent
in the Presidents powers as the Chief Executive. 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 does not mean that he is bereft of such
authority.

As explained in the landmark case of Marcos v. Manglapus, the powers of the President
are not only limited to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. Executive power
is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated. It has been advanced that whatever
power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive.

The Executive is given much leeway in ensuring that our laws are faithfully executed. As
stated above, the powers of the President are not limited to those specific powers under the
Constitution. As such, E.O 1 is justified because 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. No. The SC held that there is no usurpation on the part of the Executive of the power of Congress
to appropriate funds because there will be no appropriation but only an allotment or allocations of
existing funds already appropriated.
3. No. Contrary to petitioners apprehension, the PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or the DOJ
or erode their respective powers. The SC differentiate the power to investigate, which was given to
PTC and the power to adjudicate.
Investigate means to examine, explore, inquire or delve or probe into, research on, study. The
dictionary definition of "investigate" is "to observe or study closely: inquire into systematically:
"to search or inquire into: x x to subject to an official probe x x; on the other hand,

Adjudicate means to adjudge, arbitrate, judge, decide, determine, resolve, rule on, settle. The
dictionary defines the term as "to settle finally (the rights and duties of the parties to a court case)
on the merits of issues raised

Investigating is not adjudication likened with a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or
office. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is
not a judicial function. To be considered as such, the act of receiving evidence and arriving at
factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to
the factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or resolved authoritatively,
finally and definitively, subject to appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law.

4. YES. Although the purpose of the Truth Commission falls within the investigative power of the
President, the Court finds difficulty in upholding the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1 in
view of its apparent transgression of the equal protection clause.

What it simply required in equal protection clause is equality among equals as determined
according to a valid classification. Indeed, the 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.

Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification. In this case, the clear mandate of the
truth commission is to investigate and find out the truth concerning the reported cases of graft and
corruption during the previous administration only. In this regard however, the Arroyo
administration is but just a member of a class, that is, a class of past administrations, not a class of
its own. Making Not including the past administrations similarly situated on their target constitutes
arbitrariness which the equal protection clause cannot sanction. Such discriminating clearly labels
the commission as a vehicle for selective retribution.

Though the OSG enumerates several differences between the Arroyo administration and other past
administrations, these distinctions are not substantial enough to merit the restriction of the
investigation to the previous administration only. The reports of widespread corruption in the
Arroyo administration cannot be taken as basis for distinguishing said administration from earlier
administrations which were also blemished by similar widespread reports of impropriety. They are
not inherent in, and do not inure solely to, the Arroyo administration.