271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036  Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez — Official PDF

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 3 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472 & E-04036 address grave abuse of discretion by a tribunal, officer, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Nevertbeless, in view of this Court's expanded judicial power under Article VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution, this Court has held that the writs of certiorari and prohibition are also appropriate to "set right, undo and restrain any act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the Government, even if the latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions."6 Consequently, it is now settled that "petitions fo:r certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit or nullify the acts of legislative and executive officials."7 As petitioners raise several infirmities in the enactment of the 2024, 2025 and 2026 GAA and its provisions, all of which deal with the constitutional powers of the executive and legislative departments in relation to the national budget, the present petitions for certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to restrain any alleged grave abuse of discretion under the Court's expanded certiorari jurisdiction. To be sure, the proper invocation of the expanded certiorari jurisdiction does not mean that a direct resort to this Court is allowed as a matter of course. This Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Regional Trial Court have concurrent original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari and prohibition.8 The principle of hierarchy of courts mandates that "recourse must first be ' made to the lower~rahked court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court."9 Otherwise stated, parties are prohibited from "directly resorting to this Court when relief may be obtained before the lower courts."10 Indeed, the policy behind this doctrine is to ensure that this Court's time and attention are devoted to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and thereby prevent the congestion of its dockets. 11 As we have emphasized, "this Court could not simply give due .course to all petitions where original jurisdiction action or matter specified therein, or otheiwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a ceitified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of aH pleadings and document:, relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as prov1d,d in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. CONST., art. vm, sec. l states: SECTION 1. TI1e judiciaJ power shall be vested in one Supreme Court a..lld in such iower courts as may be established b'-' iaw. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justi~e to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandab!~ and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of d!scretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentalitv of the Government.. • , 6 Araul!o v. Pr;sidem Aqui!'lo 1!1, 737 Phil'. 457,'53 l (2014) [Per j '.Bersainin, En Banc]. 7 Id. . . CONST. (I 987), art. V!Il, sec 5(1) a.~d Batas Pambansa B!g. i29 (l 980), secs. 9(1) and 21 (!). 9 Bayyu Association, f!J-C. v. Tug.;de, 944 PhH. 316, 331 (2023) [:Per J. Singh, En Banc]. 10 Alliance of Quezon City Home011.1ne1:s • As.~·ociation, .Inc. v Queion City Government, 840 Phil. 277,289 (2018) [Per J; Perlas-Denmbc, En Banc], citing Chiq-,dtc. Brands, Inc. v. Judge Omelia, 810 Phil. 497, 527 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]. (Citation omittedj ~ 11 Aalav. L:v, 803 Phil. 36, 54 (2017) {Per J. Leanen, En Banc] (Citation omitted) (