Scribd
Upload
96 views2 pages

BIRAOGO v. Philippine Truth Commission

The Supreme Court ruled E.O. No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause. While the President has authority to investigate corruption in the executive branch, the E.O. exceeded this power by creating an entirely new commission duplicating the functions of existing agencies like the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court found the Truth Commission violated separation of powers by arrogating legislative powers to create new offices and the executive could not use reorganization powers to establish something as significant as an independent commission.

Uploaded by

Jan Nikka Estefani
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
96 views2 pages

BIRAOGO v. Philippine Truth Commission

The Supreme Court ruled E.O. No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause. While the President has authority to investigate corruption in the executive branch, the E.O. exceeded this power by creating an entirely new commission duplicating the functions of existing agencies like the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court found the Truth Commission violated separation of powers by arrogating legislative powers to create new offices and the executive could not use reorganization powers to establish something as significant as an independent commission.

Uploaded by

Jan Nikka Estefani
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

BIRAOGO v.

THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010


G.R No. 192935. December 7, 2010
MENDOZA, J.:

FACT:
E.O No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) of 2010
was signed by President Aquino. The said PTC is a mere branch formed
under the Office of the President tasked to investigate reports of
graft and corruption committed by third-level public officers and
employees, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories during
the previous administration and submit their findings
and recommendations to the President, Congress and the Ombudsman.
However, PTC is not a quasi-judicial body, it cannot adjudicate,
arbitrate, resolve, settle or render awards in disputes between
parties. Its job is to investigate, collect and asses evidences
gathered and make recommendations. It has subpoena powers but it has
no power to cite people in contempt or even arrest. It cannot
determine for such facts if probable cause exist as to warrant the
filing of an information in our courts of law.

Petitioners contends the Constitutionality of the E.O. on the grounds


that.

 It violates separation of powers as it arrogates the power of


Congress to create a public office and appropriate funds for
its operation;
 The provisions of Book III, Chapter 10, Section 31 of the
Administrative Code of 1987 cannot legitimize E.O. No. 1
because the delegated authority of the President to
structurally reorganize the Office of the President to achieve
economy, simplicity, and efficiency does not include the power
to create an entirely new office was inexistent like the Truth
Commission;
 The E.O illegally amended the Constitution when it made the
Truth Commission and vesting it the power duplicating and even
exceeding those of the Office of the Ombudsman and the DOJ.
 It violates the equal protection clause

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT the said E.O is unconstitutional.

RULING:
Yes, E.O No. 1 should be struck down as it is violative of the
equal protection clause. The Chief Executive’s power to create the
Ad hoc Investigating Committee cannot be doubted. Having been
constitutionally granted full control of the Executive Department,
to which respondents belong, the President has the obligation to
ensure that all executive officials and employees faithfully comply
with the law. With AO 298 as mandate, the legality of the
investigation is sustained. Such validity is not affected by the
fact that the investigating team and the PCAGC had the same
composition, or that the former used the offices and facilities of
the latter in conducting the inquiry.

You might also like