Rep. Edcel Lagman,Et Al vs Exec. Sec. Ochoa, Et Al GR No. 19306, Dec. 7, 2010

G.R. No. 193036 REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, REP. RODOLFO B. ALBANO, JR., REP. SIMEON A. DATUMANONG, and REP. ORLANDO B. FUA, SR. vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR. and DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD FACTS: To transform his campaign slogan, ”Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap,” the President, Benigno Simeon Aquino III, at the dawn of his administration, signed on July 30, 2010 an Executive Order No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (Truth Commission). The Philippine Truth Commission composed of a Chairman and four (4) members shall act as independent collegial body, and shall have all the powers of an investigative body under Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987. The Commission’s primary task is to conduct a thorough fact-finding investigation of reported cases of graft and corruption, involving third level public officers and higher, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories from the private sector, if any, during the previous administration and thereafter submit its findings and recommendations to the President, Congress, and the Ombudsman. The Commission is not a quasi-judicial body as it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle, or render awards in disputes between contending parties. Not long after the issuance of Executive Order No. 1, two petitions were filed with the Supreme Court. The first case, G.R. No. 192395, is a special civil action for prohibition instituted by petitioner Louis “Barok” C. Biraogo, in his capacity as a citizen and taxpayer. Birago assails Executive Order No. 1 for being violative of the legislative power of Congress under Article VI, Section 1, of the Constitution as it usurps the constitutional authority of the legislative to create a public office and to appropriate funds thereof. The second case, G.R. No.193036, is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners-legislators, Edcel C. Lagman, Rodolfo B. Albano Jr., Simeon A. Datumanong, and Orlando B. Fua, Sr. as incumbent members of the House of Representatives, questioning the legality of the creation of the Truth Commission since the creation of a public office lies within the province of Congress and not with the executive branch of government. The Office of the Solicitor General questioned the legal standing of the petitioners-legislators to assail Executive Order No. 1. The OSG argued that the petitioners-legislators have not shown that they have sustained or are in danger of sustaining any personal injury attributable to the creation of the Commission. Not claiming to be the subject of the commission’s investigation, petitioners will not sustain injury in its creation or as a result of its proceedings. ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the essential requisites for judicial review are present in order for the court to validly exercise its power of judicial review. HELD: The Philippine Supreme Court, according to Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, is vested with the 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 of excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. However, like almost all powers conferred by the Constitution, the power of Judicial Review is subject to limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. Among all these limitations, only the legal standing of the petitioners has been put at issue. The court confirmed that the petitioner-legislators had the requisite standing to challenge Executive Order No. 1 as they are allowed to question the validity of any official action which, to their mind, infringes on their prerogatives as legislators. Evidently, the 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.