View full case

LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010

FACTS:

The facts of this case revolve around the controversy over Executive Order No. 1 (E.O. No. 1), issued by President Benigno Simeon Aquino III on July 30, 2010, which established the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (Truth Commission). The creation of the Truth Commission was intended to investigate reported cases of large-scale graft and corruption allegedly committed during the administration of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Two petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of E.O. No. 1. The first was by Louis Biraogo, a citizen and taxpayer, who argued that the Executive Order usurped the legislative power of Congress to create public offices and appropriate funds. The second petition was from incumbent members of the House of Representatives, led by Edcel C. Lagman, who contended that E.O. No. 1 violated the separation of powers, among other constitutional infringements, including the equal protection clause for targeting only the previous administration. President Aquino's establishment of the Truth Commission was driven by his campaign against corruption and his slogan "Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap." The Executive Order detailed the powers and functions of the Truth Commission, emphasizing its role as an investigative body to bring closure to reported graft and corruption cases and to aid the President in ensuring the faithful execution of laws. The Order was perceived as focusing exclusively on the previous administration, leading to claims of discriminatory intent and selective prosecution.

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 the equal protection clause.

  5. Whether or not petitioners are entitled to injunctive relief.

RULING:

  1. Legal standing The petitioners-legislators have legal standing to file their petitions because their individual powers as members of Congress are affected by the issuance of Executive Order No. 1. This is consistent with the Court's earlier ruling in Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez. However, petitioner Biraogo lacks legal standing based on his individual capacity as a taxpayer. Still, the Court relaxed the rule on standing given the transcendental importance of the case.

  2. Separation of powers Executive Order No. 1 does not violate the separation of powers because the President has the power to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. Therefore, the President has the inherent authority to create bodies like the Truth Commission to aid him in the performance of this duty. This authority is supported by existing laws and previous cases.

  3. Supplanting Ombudsman/DOJ powers Executive Order No. 1 does not supplant the powers of the Ombudsman or the DOJ. The Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) is a fact-finding body without quasi-judicial powers and thus cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle, or render awards in disputes. Instead, its findings and recommendations complement those of the Ombudsman and DOJ.

  4. Equal protection clause Executive Order No. 1 violates the equal protection clause because it arbitrarily singles out the Arroyo administration for investigation while excluding previous administrations. The classification fails the test of reasonableness, as the distinctions drawn are not substantial enough to justify the exclusion of other administrations.

  5. Injunctive relief Given the violation of the equal protection clause, the petitioners are entitled to injunctive relief. The Court ordered the respondents to cease and desist from carrying out the provisions of Executive Order No. 1.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Separation of powers The President has the inherent power to create bodies to assist in the faithful execution of laws, which stems from the faithful-execution clause of the Constitution.

  2. Legal standing Legislators have standing to question executive actions that affect their powers as members of Congress, but taxpayers' standing may be relaxed given cases of transcendental importance.

  3. Equal protection clause Any classification made by the government must be reasonable, substantial, and germane to the objective, and must apply equally to all those similarly situated.

  4. Executive investigations The President can create fact-finding bodies without quasi-judicial powers to help in ensuring the execution and enforcement of laws.

  5. Constitutional supremacy All executive orders and other government actions must conform to the Constitution and cannot violate fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined therein.

This case underscores the complexity and nuance involved in the balance of powers and the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional protections even when evaluating measures aimed at curbing corruption.