Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission (G.R. No. 192935) and Lagman, et al. v. Ochoa and Abad (G.R. No. 193036) are the two names of a ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of the Philippines which invalidated the creation of a truth commission tasked to investigate a previous president. The ruling, which was handed down on December 7, 2010, ruled on the two cases as consolidated petitions.
After a month in office, PresidentBenigno Aquino III issued Executive Order No. 1 (E.O. 1) on July 30, 2010, creating the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC). The PTC was tasked to conduct a thorough fact-finding investigation of reported cases of graft and corruption involving third level public officers during the administration of Aquino's predecessor Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and thereafter submit its findings and recommendations to the Office of the President, Congress, and the Ombudsman.
Private citizen Louis Biraogo and a group of congressmen led by Lakas Kampi CMD chairman Rep. Edcel Lagman filed in the Supreme Court separate petitions for certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of E.O. 1 based on their belief that the creation of the PTC constitutes usurpation of the legislative power to create public office, threatens the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman, and violates the equal protection clause of the Philippine Constitution for specifically targeting certain officials of the Arroyo administration.
The main issues raised before the High Court were: (1) Whether the president can create public office such as the PTC without usurping the powers of Congress; (2) Whether the PTC supplants the powers already vested on the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice (DOJ); and, (3) Whether the purpose of the PTC transgresses the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
The Court's Ruling
The president has the authority to create the Truth Commission
Majority of the members of the Supreme Court rejected the justification of the Solicitor General (OSG) that the creation of the PTC finds basis on the president's power of control over all executive offices. The Decision stressed that "control" is essentially the power to alter, modify, 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 majority also rejected the OSG's claim that the E.O. finds basis under sec. 31 of the Administrative Code, which authorizes the president to restructure the Office of the President. Clearly, "restructure" under the said provision refers to reduction of personnel, consolidation or abolition of offices by reason of economy or redundancy. This presupposes an already existing office. The creation of an office is nowhere mentioned, much less envisioned in said provision.
Nonetheless, the ponencia agreed with the argument of the OSG that the president's power to create the PTC may find justification under the president's duty under sec. 17, Article VII of the Constitution "to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed." The Court held that while it is true 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, it does not necessarily mean that he does not have such authority. The president has the obligation to ensure that all executive officials and employees (whether from past or present administrations) faithfully comply with the law. The purpose of ad hoc investigating bodies such as the PTC 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.
The PTC will not erode the powers or independence of the Ombudsman
The Court also held that the investigative function of the commission will not supplant nor threaten the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman. If at all, it will complement the functions of the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice. As correctly pointed out by the OSG, the function of the PTC is merely to recommend prosecution, which is just a consequence of its fact-finding investigation. The actual prosecution of suspected offenders, much less adjudication on the merits of the charges against them, is certainly not a function given to the PTC.
The purpose of the PTC offends the equal protection clause
While the Court was almost unanimous in holding that the president indeed had the authority to create the PTC and that it would not unduly duplicate the powers of the Ombudsman, nine (9) of the justices joined Associate JusticeJose Catral Mendoza in refusing to uphold the constitutionality of E.O. 1 in view of its apparent transgression of the equal protection clause enshrined in sec. 1, Art. III of the Constitution. Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio was joined by four (4) others in their strong dissent.
Laying down a long line of precedents, the ponencia reiterated that equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person against intentional and arbitrary discrimination. Applying this precept, the majority held that E.O. 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal protection clause.
The Decision stressed that the clear mandate of the PTC is to investigate and find out the truth "concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration" only. The intent to single out the previous administration is plain, patent and manifest. Mention of it has been made in at least three portions of the questioned executive order. The Arroyo administration, according to the ponencia, is just a member of a class, that is, a class of past administrations. It is not a class of its own. Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protection clause cannot sanction. Such discriminating differentiation gave the majority an impression that the PTC is just being used "as a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective retribution" and that E.O. 1 is only an "adventure in partisan hostility."
While the Court recognized that the creation of the PTC was inspired with noble intentions, the ponencia nonetheless reminded the government of the ethical principle that "the end does not justify the means." It emphatically closed by stressing that the search for the truth must be within constitutional bounds, for "ours is still a government of laws and not of men."
Related Research Articles
Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Under Article One, Congress is a bicameral legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article One grants Congress various enumerated powers and the ability to pass laws "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers. Article One also establishes the procedures for passing a bill and places various limits on the powers of Congress and the states from abusing their powers.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage, and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard regarding race-based college admissions. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.
Hilario Gelbolingo Davide Jr. is a Filipino lawyer, professor, diplomat, constitutionalist and former politician, who served as the 20th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines and Permanent Representative of the Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations. As constitutionalist, Davide led the creation of the Legislative branch, and also wrote the most resolutions and the bulk of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, becoming its father and primary author.
The Commission on Elections, abbreviated as COMELEC, is one of the three constitutional commissions of the Philippines. Its principal role is to enforce all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections in the Philippines.
The vice president of the Philippines is the second-highest official in the executive branch of the Philippine government and is the first in the presidential line of succession. The vice president is directly elected by the citizens of the Philippines and is one of only two nationally elected executive officials, the other being the president.
The government of the Philippines has three interdependent branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The Philippines is governed as a unitary state under a presidential representative and democratic constitutional republic in which the president functions as both the head of state and the head of government of the country within a pluriform multi-party system.
Impeachment in the Philippines is an expressed power of the Congress of the Philippines to formally charge a serving government official with an impeachable offense. After being impeached by the House of Representatives, the official is then tried in the Senate. If convicted, the official is either removed from office or censured.
The Romanian Ombudsman is an independent institution of the Government of Romania, responsible for investigating and addressing complaints made by citizens against other government institutions.
Constitutional reform in the Philippines, also known as charter change, refers to the political and legal processes needed to amend the current 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. Under the common interpretation of the Constitution, amendments can be proposed by one of three methods: a People's Initiative, a Constituent Assembly or a Constitutional Convention.
Conchita Carpio-Morales is a former Ombudsman of the Philippines serving from 2011 to 2018. Prior to her appointment as Ombudsman, she held the post of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, served in the Lower Courts, as well as in the Department of Justice. She has secured appointments from five Philippine presidents: Ferdinand Marcos, Corazon Aquino, Fidel Ramos, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and Benigno Aquino III.
Agnes Vicenta Salayo Torres-Devanadera, also known as Agnes VST Devanadera, is a Filipina lawyer and politician who is currently the president and CEO of Clark Development Corporation since her appointment by Bongbong Marcos in 2022. She previously served as the chairperson of the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) from 2017 to 2022 during the Duterte administration. During the Arroyo administration, she served as the Solicitor General of the Philippines, the first woman to hold the post. She was also the acting Secretary of Justice on two short stints.
The Constitution of the Philippines is the constitution or the supreme law of the Republic of the Philippines. Its final draft was completed by the Constitutional Commission on October 12, 1986, and ratified by a nationwide plebiscite on February 2, 1987.
The Constitution of Ghana is the supreme law of the Republic of Ghana. It was approved on 28 April 1992 through a national referendum after 92% support. It defines the fundamental political principles, establishing the structure, procedures, powers and duties of the government, structure of the judiciary and legislature, and spells out the fundamental rights and duties of citizens. It is made up of 26 chapters, not including the preamble.
Jose Catral Mendoza is a former associate justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
Quinto v. COMELEC is a controversial decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines which paved the way, albeit temporarily, for incumbent appointive executive officials to stay in office after filing their certificates of candidacy for election to an elective office. The decision was first decided by a slim majority of 8-6, but was eventually reversed 10-5 upon a motion for reconsideration after the retirement of one justice and the appointment of two new ones.
The Philippine Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez was impeached by the House of Representatives on charges of the office's alleged underperformance and failure to act on several cases during the presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. She became the second official after President Joseph Estrada in 2000 to be impeached.
The Philippine Truth Commission was created to find out the truth about reports of large scale graft and corruption in the previous government; to put a closure to them by the filing of the appropriate cases against those who were involved. Furthermore, to deter others from committing such crimes and to restore the people's faith and confidence in the government and in their public servants. On July 30, 2010, President Benigno Aquino III set up the Philippine Truth Commission to find out the truth about reports of large scale graft and corruption in the previous government and to put a closure to them by the filing of the appropriate cases against those who were involved. Furthermore, to prevent others from committing such crimes and to restore the people's faith and confidence in the government and in their public servants.
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte signed Executive Order No. 02, also known as the Freedom of Information (FOI) Program, on July 23, 2016, in Davao City. The executive order established the first freedom of information (FOI) Program in the Philippines covering all government offices under the Executive Branch. It requires all executive departments, agencies, bureaus, and offices to disclose public records, contracts, transactions, and any information requested by a member of the public, except for matters affecting national security and other information that falls under the inventory of exceptions issued by Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea. The landmark order was signed two days before Duterte delivered his first State of the Nation Address and just three weeks after he assumed the presidency on June 30, 2016.
The judiciary of the Philippines consists of the Supreme Court, which is established in the Constitution, and three levels of lower courts, which are established through law by the Congress of the Philippines. The Supreme Court has expansive powers, able to overrule political and administrative decisions, and with the ability to craft rules and law without precedent. It further determines the rules of procedure for lower courts, and its members sit on electoral tribunals.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
