LOUIS “BAROK” C. BIRAOGO vs.

THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH

COMMISSION OF 2010
G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010
x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x
REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, REP. RODOLFO B. ALBANO, JR.,
REP. SIMEON A. DATUMANONG, and REP. ORLANDO B. FUA,
SR.
vs.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR. and
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SECRETARY
FLORENCIO B. ABAD

G.R. No. 193036 | December 7, 2010

PONENTE: MENDOZA, J.

FACTS:

Petitioners asked the Court to declare it unconstitutional and to

enjoin the PTC from performing its functions. They argued that:

a. E.O. No. 1 violates separation of powers as it arrogates the

power of the Congress to create a public office and appropriate
funds for its operation.
b. The provision 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 public office which was hitherto inexistent like the
“Truth Commission.”
c. E.O. No. 1 illegally amended the Constitution and statutes
when it vested the “Truth Commission” with quasi-judicial
powers duplicating, if not superseding, those of the Office of the
Ombudsman created under the 1987 Constitution and the DOJ
created under the Administrative Code of 1987.
d. 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.

Respondents, through OSG, questioned the legal standing of

petitioners and argued that:

1. E.O. No. 1 does not arrogate the powers of Congress because

the President’s executive power and power of control
necessarily include the inherent power to conduct investigations
 to ensure that laws are faithfully executed and that, in any
event, the Constitution, Revised Administrative Code of 1987,
PD No. 141616 (as amended), R.A. No. 9970 and settled
jurisprudence, authorize the President to create or form such
bodies.
2. E.O. No. 1 does not usurp the power of Congress to
appropriate funds because there is no appropriation but a mere
allocation of funds already appropriated by Congress.
3. The Truth Commission does not duplicate or supersede the
functions of the Ombudsman and the DOJ, because it is a fact-
finding body and not a quasi-judicial body and its functions do
not duplicate, supplant or erode the latter’s jurisdiction.
4. The Truth Commission does not violate the equal protection
clause because it was validly created for laudable purposes.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing to file the

petitions and question E. O. No. 1.

RULING:

The power of judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit: (1)

there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of
judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have the
standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance;
otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial interest in
the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a
result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be
raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality
must be the very lis mota of the case.

1. The petition primarily invokes usurpation of the power of the

Congress as a body to which they belong as members. To the extent
the powers of Congress are impaired, so is the power of each
member thereof, since his office confers a right to participate in the
exercise of the powers of that institution.

Legislators have a legal standing to see to it that the

prerogative, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in their
office remain inviolate. Thus, they are allowed to question the validity
of any official action which, to their mind, infringes on their
prerogatives as legislators.

With regard to Biraogo, he has not shown that he sustained, or

is in danger of sustaining, any personal and direct injury attributable
to the implementation of E. O. No. 1.
 Locus standi is “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a
given question.” In private suits, standing is governed by the “real-
parties-in interest” rule. It provides that “every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.”
Real-party-in interest is “the party who stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of
the suit.”