G.R. No. 192935 & G.R. No. 193036; December 7, 2010
LOUIS “BAROK” C. BIRAOGO, Petitioner, vs. THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010, Respondent.

REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, et al., Petitioners, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., et al., Respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions assail the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1, issued by President Benigno S. Aquino III on July 30, 2010, creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010. The Commission was tasked to investigate reports of graft and corruption of a large scale and magnitude committed during the previous administration and to recommend appropriate actions. Petitioner Louis Biraogo, in G.R. No. 192935, filed a petition for prohibition, arguing the EO usurps the legislative power of Congress to create public offices and appropriate funds. In G.R. No. 193036, several incumbent Members of the House of Representatives filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, contending the EO violates the equal protection clause by selectively targeting the previous administration.

ISSUE

The core issues are whether Executive Order No. 1 is unconstitutional for: (1) usurping the legislative power of Congress, and (2) violating the equal protection clause.

RULING

The Supreme Court declared Executive Order No. 1 unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause. The Court held that the Truth Commission, as constituted, is a public office, and its creation and the allocation of funds for its operation are primarily legislative functions. While the President has residual authority to reorganize the Office of the President under the Administrative Code, the creation of an entirely new body with a specific, narrow investigative mandate that did not previously exist exceeds this authority and encroaches upon Congress’s power.
More critically, the Court found a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The clear singling out of the previous administration for investigation, based solely on the period when the alleged acts were committed, constitutes undue classification. The classification is not based on substantial distinctions that are germane to the purpose of the law, which is to investigate graft and corruption. The executive order did not provide a valid and definitive characteristic that would distinguish the prior administration’s alleged irregularities from those of other administrations. This renders the classification arbitrary and discriminatory. Consequently, the order creates a constitutionally impermissible “ad hoc” or “targeted” investigative body. The petitions were granted, and Executive Order No. 1 was declared void.