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

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 4 G.R. Nos. 271069, 271347, E-02472 & E-04036 over the matter is shared with the lower courts as it will unnecessarily clog this Court's docket and exhaust resources that may be better utilized to resolve more pressing concems." 12 Be that as it may, this Court has also ruled that the principle ofhierarchy of courts, like any rule, admits of exceptions. 13 We have held that noncompliance with the principle may be excusej, and litigants are permitted to directly seek redress before this Court in well-settled circumstances, as follows: (1) there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time;14 (2) when the issues involved are of transcendental importance; 15 (3) cases of first impression warrant a direct resort to this court;16 (4) the constitutional issues raised are better decided by this Court; 17 (5) the time element present in [the] case cannot be ignored; 18 ( 6) the petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ; 19 (7) petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the course oflaw;20 and (8) the petition includes questions that are "dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained for were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy."21 (Citations omitted) So long as the. issue involved is one of law and the resolution of the factual issues is not necessary to resolve the constitutional issue raised, this Court may, in the exercise of its power of judicial review, take cognizance of the petition filed directly before it.22 Here, petitioners raise issues which directly call for an interpretation of constitutional provisions.The question of whether the Congress has the power •to increase the amount of unprogram.rned appropriations proposed by the President in the NEP, particularly, has also been brought for the first time before this Court. Since there are admittedly no factual issues involved in this case that will require this Court to examine and evaluate evidentiary matters, and 12 Santos v. Oabaen, 921 Phil .. 452, 469 (2022) [Per J. ( l.opez, En Banc]. 13 The Diocese ofBacolodv. Commission on Elections, 751 Phil. 30 !, 330 (2016) [Per J. Leanen, En Banc]. 14 Id. at 331. 15 Id. at 332. 1, Id. 17 Id. at 333. 1, Id. 19 Id. at 33'!. ,o Id. 21 Id. at 334-335. 22 Gius-Samar, Inc. v. Departrn,mt <![Transportation and Communication. 849 Phil. 120, 18.0 (2019) [Per ~ J. Jardeleza, En Banc]. _ (