Article VI, Section 25 Case Digest - Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission, G.R.

192935 and 193036, December 7, 2010 Biragao v. Philippine Truth Commission G.R. 192935 and 193036 December 7, 2010 FACTS The petitioners raised in Court that E.O. No. 1, which created the Truth Commission, should be declared unconstitutional and to enjoin PTC from performing its functions. The petitioners alleged that E.O. No. 1 violates the separation of powers as it arrogates the power of the Congress to create a public office and appropriate funds for its operation. They also asserted the fact that the role of the president, as stated in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, to achieve economy, simplicity and efficiency does not include the power to create an entirely new public office, which was inexistent before, the "Truth Commission". According to them, the said Executive Order 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. The respondents, on the other hand, contested that E.O. No. 1 did not arrogate the powers of the Congress to create a public office because the President's executive power and power of control necessarily includes the inherent power to conduct investigations to ensure laws are faithfully executed. More so, it does not violate the principle of separation of powers as alleged by the petitioners. They strongly argue that the said Executive Order, is valid and constitutional. ISSUE Does E.O. No. 1 transgress on the power of Congress to appropriate funds for the operation of a public office? HELD No. E.O. No 1 does not transgress on the power of the Congress to appropriate funds for the operation of a public office. In the said E.O., there will be no appropriation but only an allotment or allocations existing funds already appropriated. Thus, there is no usurpation on the part of the Executive of the power of Congress to appropriate funds. According to the Solicitor General, "whatever funds the Congress has provided for the Office of the President will be the very source of the funds for the commission," and thus, will be subject to auditing rules and regulations. However, the Court stressed that, "The end does not justify the means." No matter how noble and worthy of admiration the purpose of an act, but if the means to be employed in accomplishing its goals is simply irreconcilable with the constitutional parameters, then it cannot still be allowed. The Court cannot just run a blind eye and simply let it pass. It will continue to uphold the Constitution and its enshrined principles. The Philippine Supreme Court, according to Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, is vested with Judicial Power

that "includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave of abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government." Hence, the petitions were granted.