LOUIS BAROK C.
BIRAOGO vs THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH large scale graft and corruption solely during the said
COMMISSION OF 2010
G.R. No. 192935
Facts
T he President on July 30, 2010, signed Executive Order No.
1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010
(Truth Commission)
Barely a month after the issuance of Executive Order No. 1,
the petitioners asked the Court to declare it unconstitutional
and to enjoin the PTC from performing its functions.
Petitioners argues that E.O. No. 1 violates the equal
protection clause as it selectively targets for investigation
and prosecution officials and personnel of the previous
administration as if corruption is their peculiar species even
as it excludes those of the other administrations, past and
present, who may be indictable.
OSG contends that The Truth Commission does not
violate the equal protection clause because it was
validly created for laudable purposes.
The petitioners assail Executive Order No. 1 because
it is violative of this constitutional safeguard. They
contend that it does not apply equally to all members
of the same class such that the intent of singling out
the previous administration as its sole object makes
the PTC an adventure in partisan hostility. [66] Thus, in
order to be accorded with validity, the commission
must also cover reports of graft and corruption in
virtually all administrations previous to that of former
President Arroyo
According to respondents, while Executive Order No.
1 identifies the previous administration as the initial
subject of the investigation, following Section 17
thereof, the PTC will not confine itself to cases of
administration.[71] Assuming arguendo that the
commission would confine its proceedings to officials
of the previous administration, the petitioners argue
that no offense is committed against the equal
protection clause for the segregation of the
transactions of public officers during the previous
administration as possible subjects of investigation is
a valid classification based on substantial distinctions
and is germane to the evils which the Executive
Order seeks to correct
.[76] The purpose of the equal protection clause is to
secure every person within a states jurisdiction
against intentional and arbitrary discrimination,
whether occasioned by the express terms of a statue
or by its improper execution through the states duly
constituted authorities
ISSUE:
. Whether or not Executive Order No. 1 violates the
equal protection clause;
The petitioners assail Executive Order No. 1 because
it is violative of this constitutional safeguard. They
contend that it does not apply equally to all members
of the same class such that the intent of singling out
the previous administration as its sole object makes
the PTC an adventure in partisan hostility. [66] Thus, in
order to be accorded with validity, the commission
must also cover reports of graft and corruption in
virtually all administrations previous to that of former
President Arroyo
For a classification to meet the requirements of
constitutionality, it must include or embrace all
persons who naturally belong to the class.[83] The
classification will be regarded as invalid if all the
members of the class are not similarly treated, both
as to rights conferred and obligations imposed
Substantial similarity will suffice; and as long as this is
achieved, all those covered by the classification are to be
treated equally. The mere fact that an individual belonging
to a class differs from the other members, as long as that
class is substantially distinguishable from all others, does
not justify the non-application of the law to him
The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution
allows classification.
All that is required of a valid classification is
that it be reasonable, which means that the
classification should be based on substantial
distinctions which make for real differences,
that it must be germane to the purpose of the
law; that it must not be limited to existing
conditions only; and that it must apply equally
to each member of the class. This Court has
held that the standard is satisfied if the
classification or distinction is based on a
reasonable foundation or rational basis and is
not palpably arbitrary. [Citations omitted]
Applying these precepts to this case, Executive Order No. 1
should be struck down as violative of the equal protection
clause. The clear mandate of the envisioned truth
commission is to investigate and find out the truth
concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during
the previous administration[87] 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.
In this regard, it must be borne in mind that the Arroyo
administration is but 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 clearly
reverberates to label the commission as a vehicle for
vindictiveness and selective retribution.
Given the foregoing physical and legal impossibility, the
Court logically recognizes the unfeasibility of investigating
almost a centurys worth of graft cases. However, the fact
remains that Executive Order No. 1 suffers from arbitrary
classification. The PTC, to be true to its mandate of
searching for the truth, must not exclude the other past
administrations.The PTC must, at least, have the authority to
investigate all past administrations. While reasonable
prioritization is permitted, it should not be arbitrary lest it
be struck down for being unconstitutional.
In Executive Order No. 1, however, there is no
inadvertence. That the previous administration was picked
out was deliberate and intentional as can be gleaned from
the fact that it was underscored at least three times in the
assailed executive order. It must be noted that Executive
Order No. 1 does not even mention any particular act, event
or report to be focused on unlike the investigative
commissions created in the past. The equal protection
clause is violated by purposeful and intentional
discrimination. [103]