You are on page 1of 4

Jazel Follante Revibes JD-1 CAPTION: Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission, G.R. No.192935 (December 7, 2010) x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x Lagman v.

Ochoa, G. R. No. 193036 (December 7, 2010) IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES: G.R. No. 192935 LOUIS "BAROK" C. BIRAOGO, Petitioner, vs. THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010, Respondent. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 193036 REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, REP. RODOLFO B. ALBANO, JR., REP. SIMEON A. DATUMANONG, and REP. ORLANDO B. FUA, SR., Petitioners, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR. and DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Respondents. FACTS: This involves two consolidated cases which assail the validity and constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1, dated July 30, 2010, entitled "Creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010." G.R. No. 192935 is a special civil action for prohibition instituted by petitioner Louis Biraogo in his capacity as a citizen and taxpayer. Biraogo assails Executive Order No. 1 for being violative of the legislative power of Congress under Section 1, Article VI of the Constitution as it usurps the constitutional authority of the legislature to create a public office and to appropriate funds.

G.R. No. 193036 is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners Edcel C. Lagman, Rodolfo B. Albano Jr., Simeon A. Datumanong, and Orlando B. Fua, Sr. (petitioners-legislators) as incumbent members of the House of Representatives.

President Benigno Aquino issued Executive Order No. 1, the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 hereinafter referred to as the "COMMISSION," which shall primarily seek and find the

truth on, and toward this end, investigate reports of graft and corruption of such scale and magnitude that shock and offend the moral and ethical sensibilities of the people, committed by public officers and employees, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories from the private sector, if any, during the previous administration and thereafter recommend the appropriate action or measure to be taken thereon to ensure that the full measure of justice shall be served without fear or favor.

ISSUES OF LAW: 1.Whether or not the petitioners have the legal standing to file their respective petitions and question Executive Order No. 1; 2.Whether or not 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; 3.Whether or not the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its constitutionally mandated power of Judicial Review with respect to recent initiatives of the legislature and the executive department, is exercising undue interference; 4.Whether or not Executive Order No. 1 violates the equal protection clause; 5.Whether or not Executive Order No. 1 is unconstitutional. HOLDING: 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. RATIO: With regards to the issue of legal standing the court disagrees with the OSG in questioning the legal standing of the petitioners-legislators to assail Executive Order No. 1. Evidently, their petition primarily invokes usurpation of the power of the Congress as a body to which they

belong as members. This certainly justifies their resolve to take the cudgels for Congress as an institution and present the complaints on the usurpation of their power and rights as members of the legislature before the Court. With respect to the tax payers suits, Terr v. Jordan held that the right of a citizen and a tax payer to maintain an action in courts to restrain the unlawful use of puclic funds to his injury cannot be denied. With regards to the second issue, there is no usurpation on the part of the Executive of the power of Congress to appropriate funds. With regards to the third issue, Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, provides: That Judicial Power "includes the duty of the courts of controversies involving rights justice to settle actual

which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to discretion amounting

determine whether or not there has been a grave of abuse of to lack or excess of jurisdiction on government." Section 4(2) also provides that: The power of judicial review which is the power to declare a executive agreement, law, presidential decree,

the part of any branch or instrumentality of the

treaty,

international

or

proclamation,

order,

instruction,

ordinance, or regulation unconstitutional. This power also includes the duty to rule on the constitutionality of the application, or operation of presidential decrees, regulations. proclamations,

orders, instructions, ordinances, and other

In exercising the power of judicial review, it is not imposing its own will upon a co-equal body but rather simply making sure that any act of government is done in consonance with the authorities and rights allocated to it by the Constitution. With regards to the forth issue, Article III, Section 1 (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution Section 1 provides No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

With regards to the fifth issue the Executive Order No. 1 is rendered unconstitutional insofar as it is violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.In order for a classification to meet the requirements of constitutionality, it must include or embrace all persons who naturally belong to the class."Such a classification must not be based on existing circumstances only, or so constituted as to preclude additions to the number included within a class, but must be of such a nature as to embrace all those who may thereafter be in similar circumstances and conditions. Furthermore, all who are in situations and circumstances which are relative to the discriminatory legislation and which are indistinguishable from those of the members of the class must be brought under the influence of the law and treated by it in the same way as are the members of the class."

You might also like