casedigests

^^

BIRAOGOVSPTC
MARCH28,2013 ~ VBDIAZ
G.R.No.192935December7,2010
LOUISBAROKC.BIRAOGO
vs.
THEPHILIPPINETRUTHCOMMISSIONOF2010
xx
G.R.No.193036
REP.EDCELC.LAGMAN,REP.RODOLFOB.ALBANO,JR.,REP.SIMEONA.DATUMANONG,and
REP.ORLANDOB.FUA,SR.
vs.
EXECUTIVESECRETARYPAQUITON.OCHOA,JR.andDEPARTMENTOFBUDGETAND
MANAGEMENTSECRETARYFLORENCIOB.ABAD
FACTS:
Pres.AquinosignedE.O.No.1establishingPhilippineTruthCommissionof2010(PTC)datedJuly30,
2010.
PTCisamereadhocbodyformedundertheOceofthePresidentwiththeprimarytasktoinvestigate
reportsofgraftandcorruptioncommiedbythirdlevelpublicocersandemployees,theirco
principals,accomplicesandaccessoriesduringthepreviousadministration,andtosubmititsnding
andrecommendationstothePresident,CongressandtheOmbudsman.PTChasallthepowersofan
investigativebody.Butitisnotaquasijudicialbodyasitcannotadjudicate,arbitrate,resolve,sele,or
renderawardsindisputesbetweencontendingparties.Allitcandoisgather,collectandassessevidence
ofgraftandcorruptionandmakerecommendations.Itmayhavesubpoenapowersbutithasnopower
tocitepeopleincontempt,muchlessordertheirarrest.Althoughitisafactndingbody,itcannot
determinefromsuchfactsifprobablecauseexistsastowarrantthelingofaninformationinourcourts
oflaw.
PetitionersaskedtheCourttodeclareitunconstitutionalandtoenjointhePTCfromperformingits
functions.Theyarguedthat:

(a)E.O.No.1violatesseparationofpowersasitarrogatesthepoweroftheCongresstocreateapublic

(a)E.O.No.1violatesseparationofpowersasitarrogatesthepoweroftheCongresstocreateapublic
oceandappropriatefundsforitsoperation.
(b)TheprovisionofBookIII,Chapter10,Section31oftheAdministrativeCodeof1987cannot
legitimizeE.O.No.1becausethedelegatedauthorityofthePresidenttostructurallyreorganizethe
OceofthePresidenttoachieveeconomy,simplicityandeciencydoesnotincludethepowerto
createanentirelynewpublicocewhichwashithertoinexistentliketheTruthCommission.
(c)E.O.No.1illegallyamendedtheConstitutionandstatuteswhenitvestedtheTruthCommission
withquasijudicialpowersduplicating,ifnotsuperseding,thoseoftheOceoftheOmbudsman
createdunderthe1987ConstitutionandtheDOJcreatedundertheAdministrativeCodeof1987.
(d)E.O.No.1violatestheequalprotectionclauseasitselectivelytargetsforinvestigationand
prosecutionocialsandpersonnelofthepreviousadministrationasifcorruptionistheirpeculiar
speciesevenasitexcludesthoseoftheotheradministrations,pastandpresent,whomaybeindictable.
Respondents,throughOSG,questionedthelegalstandingofpetitionersandarguedthat:
1]E.O.No.1doesnotarrogatethepowersofCongressbecausethePresidentsexecutivepowerand
powerofcontrolnecessarilyincludetheinherentpowertoconductinvestigationstoensurethatlawsare
faithfullyexecutedandthat,inanyevent,theConstitution,RevisedAdministrativeCodeof1987,PD
No.141616(asamended),R.A.No.9970andseledjurisprudence,authorizethePresidenttocreateor
formsuchbodies.
2]E.O.No.1doesnotusurpthepowerofCongresstoappropriatefundsbecausethereisno
appropriationbutamereallocationoffundsalreadyappropriatedbyCongress.
3]TheTruthCommissiondoesnotduplicateorsupersedethefunctionsoftheOmbudsmanandthe
DOJ,becauseitisafactndingbodyandnotaquasijudicialbodyanditsfunctionsdonotduplicate,
supplantorerodethelaersjurisdiction.
4]TheTruthCommissiondoesnotviolatetheequalprotectionclausebecauseitwasvalidlycreatedfor
laudablepurposes.
ISSUES:
1.WONthepetitionershavelegalstandingtolethepetitionsandquestionE.O.No.1;
2.WONE.O.No.1violatestheprincipleofseparationofpowersbyusurpingthepowersofCongressto
createandtoappropriatefundsforpublicoces,agenciesandcommissions;
3.WONE.O.No.1supplantsthepowersoftheOmbudsmanandtheDOJ;
4.WONE.O.No.1violatestheequalprotectionclause.
RULING:
Thepowerofjudicialreviewissubjecttolimitations,towit:(1)theremustbeanactualcaseor
controversycallingfortheexerciseofjudicialpower;(2)thepersonchallengingtheactmusthavethe
standingtoquestionthevalidityofthesubjectactorissuance;otherwisestated,hemusthaveapersonal
andsubstantialinterestinthecasesuchthathehassustained,orwillsustain,directinjuryasaresultof
itsenforcement;(3)thequestionofconstitutionalitymustberaisedattheearliestopportunity;and(4)
theissueofconstitutionalitymustbetheverylismotaofthecase.

1.ThepetitionprimarilyinvokesusurpationofthepoweroftheCongressasabodytowhichthey

1.ThepetitionprimarilyinvokesusurpationofthepoweroftheCongressasabodytowhichthey
belongasmembers.TotheextentthepowersofCongressareimpaired,soisthepowerofeachmember
thereof,sincehisoceconfersarighttoparticipateintheexerciseofthepowersofthatinstitution.
Legislatorshavealegalstandingtoseetoitthattheprerogative,powersandprivilegesvestedbythe
Constitutionintheiroceremaininviolate.Thus,theyareallowedtoquestionthevalidityofany
ocialactionwhich,totheirmind,infringesontheirprerogativesaslegislators.
WithregardtoBiraogo,hehasnotshownthathesustained,orisindangerofsustaining,anypersonal
anddirectinjuryaributabletotheimplementationofE.O.No.1.
Locusstandiisarightofappearanceinacourtofjusticeonagivenquestion.Inprivatesuits,standing
isgovernedbytherealpartiesininterestrule.Itprovidesthateveryactionmustbeprosecutedor
defendedinthenameoftherealpartyininterest.Realpartyininterestisthepartywhostandstobe
benetedorinjuredbythejudgmentinthesuitorthepartyentitledtotheavailsofthesuit.
Dicultyofdetermininglocusstandiarisesinpublicsuits.Here,theplaintiwhoassertsapublic
rightinassailinganallegedlyillegalocialaction,doessoasarepresentativeofthegeneralpublic.He
hastoshowthatheisentitledtoseekjudicialprotection.Hehastomakeoutasucientinterestinthe
vindicationofthepublicorderandthesecuringofreliefasacitizenortaxpayer.
Thepersonwhoimpugnsthevalidityofastatutemusthaveapersonalandsubstantialinterestinthe
casesuchthathehassustained,orwillsustaindirectinjuryasaresult.TheCourt,however,nds
reasoninBiraogosassertionthatthepetitioncoversmaersoftranscendentalimportancetojustifythe
exerciseofjurisdictionbytheCourt.Thereareconstitutionalissuesinthepetitionwhichdeservethe
aentionofthisCourtinviewoftheirseriousness,noveltyandweightasprecedents
TheExecutiveisgivenmuchleewayinensuringthatourlawsarefaithfullyexecuted.Thepowersofthe
PresidentarenotlimitedtothosespecicpowersundertheConstitution.Oneoftherecognizedpowers
ofthePresidentgrantedpursuanttothisconstitutionallymandateddutyisthepowertocreateadhoc
commiees.Thisowsfromtheobviousneedtoascertainfactsanddetermineiflawshavebeen
faithfullyexecuted.Thepurposeofallowingadhocinvestigatingbodiestoexististoallowaninquiry
intomaerswhichthePresidentisentitledtoknowsothathecanbeproperlyadvisedandguidedinthe
performanceofhisdutiesrelativetotheexecutionandenforcementofthelawsoftheland.
2.Therewillbenoappropriationbutonlyanallotmentorallocationsofexistingfundsalready
appropriated.ThereisnousurpationonthepartoftheExecutiveofthepowerofCongressto
appropriatefunds.Thereisnoneedtospecifytheamounttobeearmarkedfortheoperationofthe
commissionbecause,whateverfundstheCongresshasprovidedfortheOceofthePresidentwillbe
theverysourceofthefundsforthecommission.TheamountthatwouldbeallocatedtothePTCshallbe
subjecttoexistingauditingrulesandregulationssothereisnoimproprietyinthefunding.
3.PTCwillnotsupplanttheOmbudsmanortheDOJorerodetheirrespectivepowers.Ifatall,the
investigativefunctionofthecommissionwillcomplementthoseofthetwooces.Thefunctionof
determiningprobablecauseforthelingoftheappropriatecomplaintsbeforethecourtsremainstobe
withtheDOJandtheOmbudsman.PTCspowertoinvestigateislimitedtoobtainingfactssothatitcan
adviseandguidethePresidentintheperformanceofhisdutiesrelativetotheexecutionand
enforcementofthelawsoftheland.

4.CourtndsdicultyinupholdingtheconstitutionalityofExecutiveOrderNo.1inviewofits

4.CourtndsdicultyinupholdingtheconstitutionalityofExecutiveOrderNo.1inviewofits
apparenttransgressionoftheequalprotectionclauseenshrinedinSection1,ArticleIII(BillofRights)of
the1987Constitution.
Equalprotectionrequiresthatallpersonsorthingssimilarlysituatedshouldbetreatedalike,bothasto
rightsconferredandresponsibilitiesimposed.Itrequirespublicbodiesandinstitutionstotreatsimilarly
situatedindividualsinasimilarmanner.Thepurposeoftheequalprotectionclauseistosecureevery
personwithinastatesjurisdictionagainstintentionalandarbitrarydiscrimination,whetheroccasioned
bytheexpresstermsofastatueorbyitsimproperexecutionthroughthestatesdulyconstituted
authorities.
Theremustbeequalityamongequalsasdeterminedaccordingtoavalidclassication.Equalprotection
clausepermitsclassication.Suchclassication,however,tobevalidmustpassthetestof
reasonableness.Thetesthasfourrequisites:(1)Theclassicationrestsonsubstantialdistinctions;(2)Itis
germanetothepurposeofthelaw;(3)Itisnotlimitedtoexistingconditionsonly;and(4)Itapplies
equallytoallmembersofthesameclass.
Theclassicationwillberegardedasinvalidifallthemembersoftheclassarenotsimilarlytreated,both
astorightsconferredandobligationsimposed.
ExecutiveOrderNo.1shouldbestruckdownasviolativeoftheequalprotectionclause.Theclear
mandateoftruthcommissionistoinvestigateandndoutthetruthconcerningthereportedcasesof
graftandcorruptionduringthepreviousadministrationonly.Theintenttosingleouttheprevious
administrationisplain,patentandmanifest.
Arroyoadministrationisbutjustamemberofaclass,thatis,aclassofpastadministrations.Itisnota
classofitsown.Nottoincludepastadministrationssimilarlysituatedconstitutesarbitrarinesswhichthe
equalprotectionclausecannotsanction.Suchdiscriminatingdierentiationclearlyreverberatestolabel
thecommissionasavehicleforvindictivenessandselectiveretribution.Supercialdierencesdonot
makeforavalidclassication.
ThePTCmustnotexcludetheotherpastadministrations.ThePTCmust,atleast,havetheauthorityto
investigateallpastadministrations.
TheConstitutionisthefundamentalandparamountlawofthenationtowhichallotherlawsmust
conformandinaccordancewithwhichallprivaterightsdeterminedandallpublicauthority
administered.LawsthatdonotconformtotheConstitutionshouldbestrickendownforbeing
unconstitutional.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionsareGRANTED.ExecutiveOrderNo.1isherebydeclared
UNCONSTITUTIONALinsofarasitisviolativeoftheequalprotectionclauseoftheConstitution.
POSTEDINPOLITICALLAW
BLOGATWORDPRESS.COM.