Lawyerly

GR No. 211833

2015-04-07

REYES, J.

One. The remedies of certiorari and prohibition are tenable. "The present Rules of Court uses two special civil actions for determining and correcting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. These are the special civil actions for certiorari and prohibition, and both are governed by Rule 65."[9] As discussed in the case of Maria Carolina P. Araullo, etc., et al. v. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, etc., et al.,[10] this Court explained that:With respect to the Court, however, the remedies of certiorari and prohibition are necessarily broader in scope and reach, and the writ of certiorari or prohibition may be issued to correct errors of jurisdiction committed not only by a tribunal, corporation, board or officer exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions but also 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. This application is expressly authorized by the text of the second paragraph of Section 1, supra.

GR No. 211833

2015-04-07

FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA v. JUDICIAL

REYES, J.

One. The remedies of certiorari and prohibition are tenable. "The present Rules of Court uses two special civil actions for determining and correcting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. These are the special civil actions for certiorari and prohibition, and both are governed by Rule 65."[9] As discussed in the case of Maria Carolina P. Araullo, etc., et al. v. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, etc., et al.,[10] this Court explained that:With respect to the Court, however, the remedies of certiorari and prohibition are necessarily broader in scope and reach, and the writ of certiorari or prohibition may be issued to correct errors of jurisdiction committed not only by a tribunal, corporation, board or officer exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions but also 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. This application is expressly authorized by the text of the second paragraph of Section 1, supra.

GR No. 211362

2015-02-24

CUDIA v. SUPERINTENDENT OF PMA

PERALTA, J.

No one is above the law, including the military. In fact, the present Constitution declares it as a matter of principle that civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military.[93] Consistent with the republican system of checks and balances, the Court has been entrusted, expressly or by necessary implication, with both the duty and the obligation of determining, in appropriate cases, the validity of any assailed legislative or executive action.[94]

GR No. 209287

2015-02-03

MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III

BERSAMIN, J.

Moreover, the DBM did not suspend or stop further expenditures in accordance with Section 38, supra, but instead transferred the funds to other PAPs.[20]

GR No. 209287

2015-02-03

MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III

BERSAMIN, J.

At this point, it is likewise important to underscore that the reversion to the General Fund of unexpended balances of appropriations savings included pursuant to Section 28 Chapter IV, Book VI of the Administrative Code[22] does not apply to the Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG), which include the Judiciary, Civil Service Commission, Commission on Audit, Commission on Elections, Commission on Human Rights, and the Office of the Ombudsman. The reason for this is that the fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the CFAG

GR No. 209287

2015-02-03

MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III

BERSAMIN, J.

The respondents assail the pronouncement of unconstitutionality of cross-border transfers made by the President. They submit that Section 25(5), Article VI of the Constitution prohibits only the transfer of appropriation, not savings. They relate that cross-border transfers have been the practice in the past, being consistent with the President's role as the Chief Executive.[35]

GR No. 209287

2015-02-03

MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III

BERSAMIN, J.

Since Congress did not provide anything for personnel services and capital outlays under the appropriation "Generation of new knowledge and technologies and research capability building in priority areas identified as strategic to National Development," then these cannot be funded in the guise of a valid transfer of savings and augmentation of appropriations.[59]

GR No. 209287

2015-02-03

MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III

BERSAMIN, J.

Apparently, the good and bad faith that the respondents mention and have in mind relate to the potential criminal, civil, and administrative cases that may be filed against the authors, proponents and implementors of the unconstitutional DAP. Since these are not issues in the petitions before us but are cases yet to come, we cannot and should not be heard about the presence of good faith or bad faith in these future cases. If I mentioned at all specific actions indicating bad faith, it was only to balance my statement that the Court should not be identified with a ruling that seemingly clears the respondents from liabilities for the constitutional transgression we found.[69]

GR No. 209287

2015-02-03

MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III

BERSAMIN, J.

To be specific about this disclaimer, aside from the many admissions outlined elsewhere in the Opinion, there are indicators showing that the DBM Secretary might have established the DAP knowingly aware that it is tainted with unconstitutionality.[70]

GR No. 209287

2015-02-03

MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III

BERSAMIN, J.

In the speech he delivered on July 14, 2014, President Aquino III also expressed the view that in applying the doctrine of operative fact, the Court has already presumed the absence of good faith on the part of the authors, proponents and implementors of the DAP, so that they would have to prove good faith during trial.[46]

UDK-15143

2015-01-21

IN MATTER OF: SAVE SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE v. ABOLITION OF JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND

LEONEN, J.

In the letter-petition, Mijares alleges that he is "a Filipino citizen, and a concerned taxpayer[.]"[8] He filed this petition as part of his "continuing crusade to defend and uphold the Constitution"[9] because he believes in the rule of law.[10] He is concerned about the threats against the judiciary after this court promulgated Priority Development Assistance Fund[11] case on November 19, 2013 and Disbursement Acceleration Program[12] case on July 1, 2014.

GR No. 213181

2014-08-19

FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA v. CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

MENDOZA, J.

It has been judicially settled that a petition for certiorari is a proper remedy to question the act of any branch or instrumentality of the government on the ground 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.[19]

	GR No. 211833 2015-04-07	FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA v. JUDICIAL REYES, J.
One. The remedies of certiorari and prohibition are tenable. "The present Rules of Court uses two special civil actions for determining and correcting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. These are the special civil actions for certiorari and prohibition, and both are governed by Rule 65."[9] As discussed in the case of Maria Carolina P. Araullo, etc., et al. v. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, etc., et al.,[10] this Court explained that:With respect to the Court, however, the remedies of certiorari and prohibition are necessarily broader in scope and reach, and the writ of certiorari or prohibition may be issued to correct errors of jurisdiction committed not only by a tribunal, corporation, board or officer exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions but also 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. This application is expressly authorized by the text of the second paragraph of Section 1, supra.
	GR No. 211833 2015-04-07	FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA v. JUDICIAL REYES, J.
One. The remedies of certiorari and prohibition are tenable. "The present Rules of Court uses two special civil actions for determining and correcting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. These are the special civil actions for certiorari and prohibition, and both are governed by Rule 65."[9] As discussed in the case of Maria Carolina P. Araullo, etc., et al. v. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, etc., et al.,[10] this Court explained that:With respect to the Court, however, the remedies of certiorari and prohibition are necessarily broader in scope and reach, and the writ of certiorari or prohibition may be issued to correct errors of jurisdiction committed not only by a tribunal, corporation, board or officer exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions but also 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. This application is expressly authorized by the text of the second paragraph of Section 1, supra.
	GR No. 211362 2015-02-24	CUDIA v. SUPERINTENDENT OF PMA PERALTA, J.
No one is above the law, including the military. In fact, the present Constitution declares it as a matter of principle that civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military.[93] Consistent with the republican system of checks and balances, the Court has been entrusted, expressly or by necessary implication, with both the duty and the obligation of determining, in appropriate cases, the validity of any assailed legislative or executive action.[94]
	GR No. 209287 2015-02-03	MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BERSAMIN, J.
Moreover, the DBM did not suspend or stop further expenditures in accordance with Section 38, supra, but instead transferred the funds to other PAPs.[20]
	GR No. 209287 2015-02-03	MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BERSAMIN, J.
At this point, it is likewise important to underscore that the reversion to the General Fund of unexpended balances of appropriations savings included pursuant to Section 28 Chapter IV, Book VI of the Administrative Code[22] does not apply to the Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG), which include the Judiciary, Civil Service Commission, Commission on Audit, Commission on Elections, Commission on Human Rights, and the Office of the Ombudsman. The reason for this is that the fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the CFAG
	GR No. 209287 2015-02-03	MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BERSAMIN, J.
The respondents assail the pronouncement of unconstitutionality of cross-border transfers made by the President. They submit that Section 25(5), Article VI of the Constitution prohibits only the transfer of appropriation, not savings. They relate that cross-border transfers have been the practice in the past, being consistent with the President's role as the Chief Executive.[35]
	GR No. 209287 2015-02-03	MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BERSAMIN, J.
Since Congress did not provide anything for personnel services and capital outlays under the appropriation "Generation of new knowledge and technologies and research capability building in priority areas identified as strategic to National Development," then these cannot be funded in the guise of a valid transfer of savings and augmentation of appropriations.[59]
	GR No. 209287 2015-02-03	MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BERSAMIN, J.
Apparently, the good and bad faith that the respondents mention and have in mind relate to the potential criminal, civil, and administrative cases that may be filed against the authors, proponents and implementors of the unconstitutional DAP. Since these are not issues in the petitions before us but are cases yet to come, we cannot and should not be heard about the presence of good faith or bad faith in these future cases. If I mentioned at all specific actions indicating bad faith, it was only to balance my statement that the Court should not be identified with a ruling that seemingly clears the respondents from liabilities for the constitutional transgression we found.[69]
	GR No. 209287 2015-02-03	MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BERSAMIN, J.
To be specific about this disclaimer, aside from the many admissions outlined elsewhere in the Opinion, there are indicators showing that the DBM Secretary might have established the DAP knowingly aware that it is tainted with unconstitutionality.[70]
	GR No. 209287 2015-02-03	MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BERSAMIN, J.
In the speech he delivered on July 14, 2014, President Aquino III also expressed the view that in applying the doctrine of operative fact, the Court has already presumed the absence of good faith on the part of the authors, proponents and implementors of the DAP, so that they would have to prove good faith during trial.[46]
	UDK-15143 2015-01-21	IN MATTER OF: SAVE SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE v. ABOLITION OF JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND LEONEN, J.
In the letter-petition, Mijares alleges that he is "a Filipino citizen, and a concerned taxpayer[.]"[8] He filed this petition as part of his "continuing crusade to defend and uphold the Constitution"[9] because he believes in the rule of law.[10] He is concerned about the threats against the judiciary after this court promulgated Priority Development Assistance Fund[11] case on November 19, 2013 and Disbursement Acceleration Program[12] case on July 1, 2014.
	GR No. 213181 2014-08-19	FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA v. CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO MENDOZA, J.
It has been judicially settled that a petition for certiorari is a proper remedy to question the act of any branch or instrumentality of the government on the ground 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.[19]