Biraogo v Philippine Truth Commission
Power and Function of the President: Executive Power
Ponente: Mendoza, J.
SUMMARY:
Fairly short, just look at the facts.  It’s basically saying
that Executive Order (EO) 1 is unconstitutional.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the petitioners have legal standing
2. Whether or not EO 1 violates the principle of
separation of powers by usurping the congress
to create and appropriate funds for public
offices.
3. Whether EO 1 supplants the powers of the
Ombudsman and the DOJ
4. Whether or not EO1 violates the equal
protection clause
FACTS:
1. Executive Order No.1 was promulgated on July
30, 2010 creating the Philippine Truth
Commission (PTC)
2. First special civil action, instituted by Louis
Biraogo in his capacity as a citizen and a
taxpayer: EO No. 1 violative of the legislative
power of Congress under Section 1 Article VI of
the Constitution; usurpation of the
constitutional authority of the legislature to
create a public office and to appropriate funds
therefor.
3. Second special civil action, instituted by Edcel C.
Lagman, Rodolfo B. Albano Jr., Simeon A.
Datumanong, and Orlando B. Fua, Sr., as
incumbent members of the House of
Representatives.
4. EO No. 1 (origin): Benigno Simeon Aquino III
won the May 2010 elections with his slogan
“Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap”.
5. The PTC is a special body created to investigate
reported cases of graft and corruption allegedly
committed during the previous administration.
HOLDING:
1. Yes. Petitioners-legislators’ petition invokes
usurpation of the power of the Congress as a
body to which they belong as members. As to
Biraogo’s case, even if he does not sustain direct
injury the petition covers matters of
transcendental importance and thus the
requirement on standing can be waived.
2. The creation of the PTC does not fall within the
ambit of his delegated power that allows him to
reorganize the Office of the President. The
power to create offices is also not justified by
the president’s power to control. However,
every branch of government is vested with the
power to investigate. The President has the
power to conduct investigations to aid him in
the faithful execution of laws. Also in Marcos v.
Manglapus the court held that the President is
bestowed with Residual Powers – powers not
explicitly mandated but are inherent in the
“executive power”. The constitution also
mandates the Executive to execute laws
faithfully, and one of the recognized powers
pursuant to this duty is the power to create ad
hoc committees.
3. No. the PTC’s investigative function even
complements that of the Ombudsman and the
DOJ. The PTC only gathers information and may
recommend the prosecution of officials that
violate the laws in their capacity as public
officials. PTC’s power to investigate is limited to
 obtaining facts so that I can advise and guide the
President in the performance of his duties.
4. Yes. Equal protection simply requires that all
persons or things similarly situated should be
treated alike. The purpose of the equal
protection clause is to protect the every person
within the state’s jurisdiction from intentional
and arbitrary discrimination. However, it does
not require universal application of the law.
What it simply requires s equality among equals,
determined through a valid classification.
A valid classification can be determined by the
test of REASONABLENESS:
Four requisites:
1. Substantial distinctions
2. Germane to the purpose of the law
3. It is not limited to existing conditions
only
4. It applies equally to all members of
the same class
EO 1, in singling out the previous administration,
violated the equal protection clause. The Arroyo
administration is but a member of a class (past
administrations). It is not a class of its own.
Earlier administrations were also blemished by
similar widespread reports of corruption.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. Executive
Order No. 1 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL
insofar as it is violative of the equal protection clause of
the Constitution.