G.R. No. 192935 - Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010

Ask AI

G.R. No. 192935: Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010

Getting related questions...
What do you want to know about the case?
Ask AI quickly gives answers based only on the current context to avoid mistakes. Always verify with the original text.

New Chat Started

Ask AI

Title Source: Supreme Court: Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010

Case: G.R. No. 192935

Decision Date: Dec 7, 2010

The Supreme Court ruled Executive Order No. 1 unconstitutional, citing violation of separation of powers and equal protection, as it created the Truth Commission without legislative authority and targeted only the previous administration.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192935)

It appears you’ve shared Justice Sereno’s dissenting opinion in full. How can I help you with this text? Do you need a summary, specific analysis of any point, or assistance preparing a brief

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 192935)

Background

Two special civil actions were consolidated:
• G.R. No. 192935 filed by Louis “Barok” C. Biraogo as citizen and taxpayer (prohibition)
• G.R. No. 193036 filed by Reps. Edcel Lagman, Rodolfo Albano Jr., Simeon Datumanong and Orlando Fua Sr. (certiorari and prohibition)
Both actions challenge Executive Order No. 1 (July 30, 2010) by President Benigno S. Aquino III creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (PTC)
EO 1 tasked the PTC to fact-find and “seek and find the truth” about “reports of graft and corruption…during the previous administration,” and to recommend appropriate actions, including prosecution

Issues Presented

Do petitioners have legal standing to assail EO 1?
Does EO 1 unlawfully usurp Congress’s power to create public offices and appropriate funds?
Does EO 1 improperly supplant the investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice?
Does EO 1 violate the equal protection clause by singling out only the previous administration for investigation?

Petitioners’ Arguments

EO 1 creates a public office without legislative authority, violating separation of powers (Art. VI, Sec. 1)
It appropriates funds by directing “necessary funds” from the President’s budget, encroaching on Congress’s power of the purse
It duplicates or usurps the Ombudsman’s exclusive jurisdiction (Art. XI, Secs. 1, 13) and the DOJ’s prosecutorial function
It breaches equal protection by limiting the PTC’s investigative scope to the previous administration alone without including other past administrations

Respondents’ Arguments (OSG)

Both taxpayer and legislator petitioners have standing; the latter sustain a derivative institutional injury to Congress
EO 1 falls squarely within the President’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws (Art. VII, Sec. 17) and his statutory power to reorganize his Office (EO 292, Sec. 31)
The PTC is an ad hoc fact-finding body, not a new public office requiring legislative creation
Funds for t

END