Biraogo v.

Truth Commission
G.R. No. 192935. December 7, 2010

Louis “Barok” Biraogo vs. the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010

Facts:

President Noynoy Aquino signed Executive Order No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010 (PTC) , an ad hoc body formed under the Office of the President with the
primary task 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 thereafter to submit its finding and recommendations to the President,
Congress and the Ombudsman. Though it has been described as an “independent collegial body,”
it is essentially an entity within the Office of the President Proper and subject to his control.
Doubtless, it constitutes a public office, as an ad hoc body is one.

To accomplish its task, the PTC shall have all the powers of an investigative body the
Administrative Code of 1987. It is not, however, a quasi-judicial body as it cannot adjudicate,
arbitrate, resolve, settle, or render awards in disputes between contending parties. All it can do is
gather, collect and assess evidence of graft and corruption and make recommendations. It may
have subpoena powers but it has no power to cite people in contempt, much less order their
arrest. Although it is a fact-finding body, it cannot determine from such facts if probable cause
exists as to warrant the filing of an information in our courts of law. Needless to state, it cannot
impose criminal, civil or administrative penalties or sanctions.

Barely a month after the issuance of Executive Order No. 1, Biraogo asked the Court to declare it
unconstitutional and to enjoin the PTC from performing its functions. He contended that E.O. No.
1 violates the separation of powers as it arrogates the power of the Congress to create a public office and
appropriate funds for its operation.

Issue:
WON 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.

Ruling:
No.
The creation of the PTC finds justification under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution,
imposing upon the President the duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. Section 17
reads:
Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He
shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

As correctly pointed out by the respondents, the allocation of power in the three principal
branches of government is a grant of all powers inherent in them. The President’s power to
conduct investigations to aid him in ensuring the faithful execution of laws—in this case,
fundamental laws on public accountability and transparency—is inherent in the President’s
powers as the Chief Executive. 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 does not mean that he is bereft of such authority.

As explained in the landmark case of Marcos v. Manglapus:

“The 1987 Constitution, however, brought back the presidential system of government and restored the
separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers by their actual distribution among three distinct
branches of government with provision for checks and balances. It would not be accurate, however, to
state that “executive power” is the power to enforce the laws, for the President is head of state as well
as head of government and whatever powers inherent in such positions pertain to the office unless the
Constitution itself withholds it. Furthermore, the Constitution itself provides that the execution of the
laws is only one of the powers of the President. It also grants the President other powers that do not
involve the execution of any provision of law, e.g., his power over the country’s foreign relations.

On these premises, we hold the view that although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the
exercise of specific powers of the President, it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within
the scope of “executive power.” Corollarily, the powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only
to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, executive power is more than the
sum of specific powers so enumerated. It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the
government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive.

Indeed, the Executive is given much leeway in ensuring that our laws are faithfully executed. As
stated above, the powers of the President are not limited to those specific powers under the
Constitution. One of the recognized powers of the President granted pursuant to this
constitutionally-mandated duty is the power to create ad hoc committees. This flows from the
obvious need to ascertain facts and determine if laws have been faithfully executed.

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. It should be stressed that the purpose of allowing ad hoc investigating bodies to exist 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. And if history is to be revisited, this was also the objective of the
investigative bodies created in the past like the PCAC, PCAPE, PARGO, the Feliciano Commission,
theMelo Commission and the Zeñarosa Commission. There being no changes in the government
structure, the Court is not inclined to declare such executive power as nonexistent just because
the direction of the political winds have changed.

On the charge that Executive Order No. 1 transgresses the power of Congress to appropriate
funds for the operation of a public office, suffice it to say that there will be no appropriation but
only an allotment or allocations of existing funds already appropriated. Accordingly, there is no
usurpation on the part of the Executive of the power of Congress to appropriate funds. Further,
there is no need to specify the amount to be earmarked for the operation of the commission
because, in the words of the Solicitor General, “whatever funds the Congress has provided for
the Office of the President will be the very source of the funds for the commission.” Moreover,
since the amount that would be allocated to the PTC shall be subject to existing auditing rules
and regulations, there is no impropriety in the funding.

Note, however, that Executive Order No. 1 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL in this case
insofar as it is violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. A revision of the
executive issuance so as to include the earlier past administrations would allow it to pass the
test of reasonableness and not be an affront to the Constitution.