You are on page 1of 2

BIRAOGO vs.

TRUTH COMMISSION
G.R. No. 192935-193036 December 7, 2010-

Fact:
 Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth Commission of 2010
 PTC is a mere ad hoc body with the primary task to investigate reports of graft and corruption committed by third-level
public officers and employees and to submit its finding and recommendations to the President, Congress and the
Ombudsman
 PTC has all the powers of an investigative body. But it is not 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.

Issue: Does the creation of the PTC fall within the ambit of the power to reorganize as expressed in Section 31 of the Revised
Administrative Code? -NO

Ruling + Ratio: Section 31 contemplates "reorganization" as limited by the following functional and structural lines: (1)
restructuring the internal organization of the Office of the President Proper by abolishing, consolidating or merging units thereof
or transferring functions from one unit to another; (2) transferring any function under the Office of the President to any other
Department/Agency or vice versa; or (3) transferring any agency under the Office of the President to any other
Department/Agency or vice versa. Clearly, the provision refers to reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition
thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. These point to situations where a body or an office is already existent
but a modification or alteration thereof has to be effected. The creation of an office is nowhere mentioned, much less envisioned
in said provision. Accordingly, the answer to the question is in the negative.

To say that the PTC is borne out of a restructuring of the Office of the President under Section 31 is a misplaced supposition,
even in the plainest meaning attributable to the term "restructure"– an "alteration of an existing structure." Evidently, the PTC
was not part of the structure of the Office of the President prior to the enactment of Executive Order No. 1.

The creation of the PTC is not justified by the President’s power of control. Control is essentially the power to alter or
modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the
judgment of the former with that of the latter. Clearly, the power of control is entirely different from the power to create public
offices. The former is inherent in the Executive, while the latter finds basis from either a valid delegation from Congress, or his
inherent duty to faithfully execute the laws.

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

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 inhere 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.

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.53 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.
The President’s power to conduct investigations to ensure that laws are faithfully executed is well recognized. It flows from
the faithful-execution clause of the Constitution under Article VII, Section 17 thereof. As the Chief Executive, the president
represents the government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department.
Invoking this authority, the President constituted the PTC to primarily investigate reports of graft and corruption and
to recommend the appropriate action. As previously stated, no quasi-judicial powers have been vested in the said body as it
cannot adjudicate rights of persons who come before it. It has been said that "Quasi-judicial powers involve the power to hear
and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid
down by law itself in enforcing and administering the same law." In simpler terms, judicial discretion is involved in the exercise
of these quasi-judicial power, such that it is exclusively vested in the judiciary and must be clearly authorized by the legislature
in the case of administrative agencies.

The legal meaning of "investigate" is essentially the same: "(t)o follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observation. To
trace or track; to search into; to examine and inquire into with care and accuracy; to find out by careful inquisition; examination;
the taking of evidence; a legal inquiry;" "to inquire; to make an investigation," "investigation" being in turn described as "(a)n
administrative function, the exercise of which ordinarily does not require a hearing. 2 Am J2d Adm L Sec. 257; x x an inquiry,
judicial or otherwise, for the discovery and collection of facts concerning a certain matter or matters."

"Adjudicate," commonly or popularly understood, means to adjudge, arbitrate, judge, decide, determine, resolve, rule on,
settle. The dictionary defines the term as "to settle finally (the rights and duties of the parties to a court case) on the merits of
issues raised: x x to pass judgment on: settle judicially: x x act as judge." And "adjudge" means "to decide or rule upon as a judge
or with judicial or quasi-judicial powers: x x to award or grant judicially in a case of controversy x x."

In the legal sense, "adjudicate" means: "To settle in the exercise of judicial authority. To determine finally. Synonymous
with adjudge in its strictest sense;" and "adjudge" means: "To pass on judicially, to decide, settle or decree, or to sentence or
condemn. x x. Implies a judicial determination of a fact, and the entry of a judgment." [Italics included. Citations Omitted]

Fact-finding is not adjudication and it cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial
agency or office. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function.
To be considered as such, the act of receiving evidence and arriving at factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied
by the authority of applying the law to the factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or resolved
authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. Even respondents
themselves admit that the commission is bereft of any quasi-judicial power.
As pointed out by the Solicitor General, the recommendation to prosecute is but a consequence of the overall task of the
commission to conduct a fact-finding investigation." The actual prosecution of suspected offenders, much less adjudication on
the merits of the charges against them, is certainly not a function given to the commission. The phrase, "when in the course of its
investigation," under Section 2(g), highlights this fact and gives credence to a contrary interpretation from that of the petitioners.
The function of determining probable cause for the filing of the appropriate complaints before the courts remains to be with the
DOJ and the Ombudsman.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. Executive Order No. 1 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as
it is violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

You might also like