Law Philippines: Case Digest: Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission
11/26/16 11:04 AM
of the President, the Court finds difficulty in upholding the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1 in view of its apparent transgression of the equal protection clause. The equal protection clause is aimed at all official state actions, not just those of the legislature. Its inhibitions cover all the departments of the government including the political and executive departments, and extend to all actions of a state denying equal protection of the laws, through whatever agency or whatever guise is taken. It, however, does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons or things without distinction. What it simply requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. Indeed, the equal protection clause permits classification. Such classification, however, to be valid must pass the test of reasonableness. The test has four requisites: (1) The classification rests on substantial distinctions; (2) It is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) It is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) It applies equally to all members of the same class."Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification." Applying these precepts to this case, Executive Order No. 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal protection clause. The clear mandate of the envisioned truth commission is to investigate and find out t he truth "concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration only. The intent to single out the previous administration is plain, patent and manifest. Mention of it has been made in at least t hree portions of the questioned executive order. In this regard, it must be borne in mind that the Arroyo administration is but just a member of a class, that is, a class of past administrations. It is not a class of its own. Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protection clause cannot sanction. Such discriminating differentiation clearly reverberates to label the commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective retribution. POLITICAL LAW- power of the Supreme Court of Judicial Review The Philippine Supreme Court, according to Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, is vested with Judicial Power that "includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave of abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government." Furthermore, in Section 4(2) thereof, it is vested with the power of judicial review which is the power to declare a treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, 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, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations. These provisions, however, have been fertile grounds of conflict between the Supreme Court, on one hand, and the two co-equal bodies of government, on the other. Many times the Court has been accused of asserting superiority over the other departments. Thus, the Court, in exercising its power of judicial review, is not imposing its own will upon a co-equal body but rather simply making sure that any act of government isdone in consonance with the authorities and rights allocated to it by the Constitution. And, if after said review, the Court finds no constitutional violations of any sort, then, it has no more authority of proscribing the actions under review.
http://lawphil.blogspot.com/2010/12/case-digest-biraogo-v-philippine-truth.html
Page 5 of 7
Law Philippines: Case Digest: Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission
11/26/16 11:04 AM
Otherwise, the Court will not be deterred to pronounce said act as void and unconstitutional. GRANTED. 5'%#&&'(- )67* #( 8##49'
"# %#&&'()* +')
,-- . %#&&'() .* /0.( 1'2(.(-# 3.2#(4
Newer Post
Home
Older Post
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
http://lawphil.blogspot.com/2010/12/case-digest-biraogo-v-philippine-truth.html
Page 6 of 7
Law Philippines: Case Digest: Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission
11/26/16 11:04 AM
Simple template. Powered by Blogger .
http://lawphil.blogspot.com/2010/12/case-digest-biraogo-v-philippine-truth.html
Page 7 of 7
