G.R. No. 192935
December 7, 2010
Facts
The Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) was established by Executive Order No. 1 upon the directive of former President Benigno Aquiño. PTC was established in order to investigate the graft and corruption of the previous administration of former president Gloria Arroyo. In this case, petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the establishment of PTC on the ground that it violates of the equal protection of laws.
Issue
Whether or not the establishment of the PTC violates the equal protection clause?
Held
Yes.
Concept of Equal Protection of the Laws
The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due process, as every unfair discrimination offends the requirements of justice and fair play. Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objectives.
Purpose
To secure every person within a state’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a statue or by its improper execution through the state’s duly constituted authorities.
Test of Reasonableness: not satisfied
1. Substantial Distinctions
In this case, there is no substantial distinction. Reports of widespread corruption in the Arroyo administration cannot be taken as basis for distinguishing said administration from earlier administrations which were also blemished by similar widespread reports of impropriety. As Justice Isagani Cruz puts it, “Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification.”
2. Germane to the purpose of the law
In this case, the distinction is not germane to the purpose of the law. Executive Order No. 1 chooses to limit the scope of the intended investigation to the previous administration only. The OSG ventures to opine that “to include other past administrations, at this point, may unnecessarily overburden the commission and lead it to lose its effectiveness.” The reason given is specious. It is without doubt irrelevant to the legitimate and noble objective of the PTC to stamp out or “end corruption and the evil it breeds.”
3. Not limited to existing conditions only
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. In this case, EO No. 1 is limited to existing conditions since it is limited in scope. It is limited on the to the investigation of the Arroyo administration. Although Section 17 allows the President the discretion to expand the scope of investigations of the PTC so as to include the acts of graft and corruption committed in other past administrations, it does not guarantee that they would be covered in the future as it still depend on the whim and caprice of the President.
4. Applies equally to all the members of the same class
The EO does not apply equally to all the members of the class. 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. Excluding past administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protection clause cannot sanction.
Therefore, EO No. 1 which established the PTC is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause.