Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Jelbert B. Galicto v. H.E. President Benigno Simeon C.

Aquino, III
GR 193978
28 February 2012

MAINPOINT: With the enactment of the GOCC Governance Act of 2011, the President is now
authorized to fix the compensation framework of Government-Owned and Controlled
Corporations (GOCCs) and Government Financial Institutions (GFIs).

FACTS: On September 8, 2010, issued EO 7, which provided for the guiding principles and
framework to establish a fixed compensation and position classification system for GOCCs and
GFIs. EO 7 ordered (1) a moratorium on the increases in the salaries and other forms of
compensation, except salary adjustments under EO 8011 and EO 900, of all GOCC and GFI
employees for an indefinite period to be set by the President, and (2) a suspension of all allowances,
bonuses and incentives of members of the Board of Directors/Trustees until December 31, 2010.
Jelbert Galicto claims that as a PhilHealth employee, he is affected by the implementation of EO
7, which was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, as
it is null and void for lack of legal basis. He asserts that EO7 is unconstitutional for having been
issued beyond the powers of the President. It is contended, however, that the President exercises
control over the governing boards of the GOCCs and GFIs; thus, he can fix their compensation
packages in order to control the grant of excessive salaries, allowances, incentives, etc.
Hence, he filed this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Application for Writ of Preliminary
Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order, seeking to nullify and enjoin the implementation
of EO7.

ISSUE: Was certiorari a proper remedy?

RULING: No. Under the Rules of Court, petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition are availed of to
question judicial, quasi-judicial and mandatory acts. Since the issuance of an EO is not judicial,
quasi-judicial or a mandatory act, a petition for certiorari and prohibition is an incorrect remedy;
instead a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, filed with the RTC, is
the proper recourse to assail the validity of EO 7:
Section 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other
written instrument, whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance,
or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in
the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising,
and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. (Emphases ours.)

Bayan v. Romulo
641 SCRA 244 [2011]

MAINPOINT: In cases of transcendental importance, the Court may relax the standing requirements
and allow a suit to prosper even where there is no direct injury to the party claiming the right of judicial

FACTS: Petitioner Bayan Muna is a duly registered party-list group established to represent the
marginalized sectors of society. Respondent Blas F. Ople, now deceased, was the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs during the period material to thiscase. Respondent Alberto Romulo was impleaded
in his capacity as then Executive Secretary. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Having a key determinative bearing on this case is the Rome Statute establishing the International
Criminal Court (ICC) with the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the mostserious
crimes of international concern and shall be complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions
Theserious crimes adverted to cover those considered grave under international law, such as
genocide, crimes againsthumanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.On December 28, 2000,
the RP, through Charge d·Affaires Enrique A. Manalo, signed the Rome Statute which, by
itsterms,is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by the signatory states. As of the filing of
the instant petition, only 92 out of the 139 signatory countries appear to have completed the
ratification, approval and concurrence process. The Philippines is not among the 92.


Magallona v. Ermita- 655 SCRA 476 [2011]

Other Rules: Raise at Earliest Opportunity and Constitutionality is the Very Lis Mota
People v. Vera- 65 PHIL. 56 [1937-1938]
Mirasol v. CA- 351 SCRA 44 [2001]
Matibag v. Benipayo- 380 SCRA 49 [2002]
La Bugal v. Ramos- 421 SCRA 148 [2004]
Estarja v. Ranada- 492 SCRA 652 [2006]
Moldex v. HLURB- 525 SCRA 198 [2007]
Gobenciong v. CA- 550 SCRA 502 [2008]
Heirs v. Marasigan- 548 SCRA 409 [2008]
Abakada v. Purisima- 562 SCRA 251 [2008]
ABS- CBN v. Phil. Multi-Media- 576 SCRA 262 [2009]
CSC v. Andal- 608 SCRA 370 [2009]
BPI v. Shemberg- 628 SCRA 70 [2010]
Macalintal v. PET- 635 SCRA 783 [2010]
Sergio I. Carbonilla, et al. v. Board of Airlines Representatives, GR 193247,
Office of the President v. Board of Airlines Representatives GR 194276, 14 September 2011
Reiterating Moldex v. HLURB
Hacienda Luisita v. PARC, GR 171101, November 22, 2011
Sana v. CESB, GR 192926, November 15, 2011
Gamboa v. Teves- 652 SCRA 690 [2011]

Moot Cases
David v. Arroyo, 489 SCRA 162 (2006)
Suplico v. NEDA, GR 178830, July 14, 2008
Mattel Inc. v. Francisco, GR No. 166886, July 30, 2008
Araullo, et al v. Aquino, et al, GR No. 209287, July 1, 2014 (p. 22)

Political Questions; Requisites

Baker v. Carr- 369 US 169 [1962]
Torrecampo v. Metropolitan- 649 SCRA 482 [2011]
Textually Demonstrable Commitment
Osmena v. Pendatun- 109 PHIL. 683 [1960]
Arroyo v. De Venecia- 277 SCRA 268 [1997]
Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona- GR 134577, November 18, 1998
ICMC v. Calleja- GR 85750, September 28, 1990
Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 [1997]
Garcia v. Corona, GR 132451, Dec. 17, 1999