1987 Constitution
A8 S1. The judicial power shall be
vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be
established by law.
Judicial power 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 abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
A8S5. The Supreme Court shall have A10S5. The Supreme Court shall
the following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over
cases affecting ambassadors,
other public ministers and
consuls, and over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, and
habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, (2) Review and revise, reverse,
or affirm on appeal or certiorari,
as the law or the Rules of Court
may provide, final judgments and
orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the
constitutionality or validity of
any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law,
presidential decree,
proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or
regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality
of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation
thereto.
(c) All cases in which the
jurisdiction of any lower court
is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the
penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error
or question of law is involved.
1973 Constitution
A10S1. The Judicial power shall be
vested in one Supreme Court and in
such inferior courts as may be
established by law. The Batasang
Pambansa shall have the power to
define, prescribe, and apportion the
jurisdiction of the various courts,
but may not deprive the Supreme
Court of its jurisdiction over cases
enumerated in Section five hereof.
have the following powers:
cases affecting ambassadors,
other public ministers, and
consuls, and over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus quo warranto, and
habeas corpus.
modify, or affirm on appeal or
certiorari, as the law or the Rules
of Court may provide, final
judgments and decrees of
inferior courts in–
(a) All cases in which the
constitutionality or validity of
any treaty, executive
agreement, law, ordinance, or
executive order or regulation
is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality
of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation
thereto.
(c) All cases in which the
jurisdiction of any inferior
court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the
penalty imposed is death or
life imprisonment.
(e) All cases in which only an
error or question of law is
involved.
1935 Constitution
A8S1. The Judicial power shall be
vested in one Supreme Court and in
such inferior courts as may be
established by law.
A8S2. The National Assembly shall
have the power to define, prescribe,
and apportion the jurisdiction of the
various courts, but may not deprive
the Supreme Court of its original
jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public
ministers, and consuls, nor of its
jurisdiction to review, revise,
reverse, modify, or affirm on
appeal, certiorari, or writ of error,
as the law or the rules of court may
provide, final judgments and
decrees of inferior courts in-
(1) All cases in which the
constitutionality or validity of
any treaty, law, ordinance, or
executive order or regulation is
in question.
(2) All cases involving the legality of
any tax, impost, assessment, or
toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.
(3) All cases in which the jurisdiction
of any trial courts is in issue.
(4) All criminal cases in which the
penalty imposed is death or life
imprisonment.
(5) All cases in which an error or
question of law is involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of
lower courts to other stations as
public interest may require. Such
temporary assignment shall not
exceed six months without the
consent of the judge concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place
of trial to avoid a miscarriage of
justice.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all
courts, the admission to the
practice of law, the Integrated
Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall
provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall
be uniform for all courts of the
same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by
the Supreme Court.
(6) Appoint all officials and
employees of the Judiciary in
accordance with the Civil Service
Law.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of
inferior courts to other stations
as public interest may require.
Such temporary assignment shall
not last longer than six mouths
without the consent of the judge
concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place
of trial to avoid a miscarriage of
justice.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning
pleading, practice, and procedure
in all courts, the admission to the
practice of law, and the
integration of the Bar, which,
however, may be repealed,
altered, or supplemented by the
Batasang Pambansa. Such rules
shall provide a simplified
and.inexpensive procedure for
the speedy disposition of cases,
shall be uniform for all courts of
the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights.
(6) Appoint its officials and
employees in accordance with
the Civil Service Law.

(Galicto v Executive Secretary)

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 Regional Trial Court (RTC), is the proper recourse to assail the validity of EO 7.
Although the instant petition is styled as a petition for certiorari, in essence, it seeks the declaration by this Court
of the unconstitutionality or illegality of the questioned ordinance and executive order. It, thus, partakes of the
nature of a petition for declaratory relief over which this Court has only appellate, not original, jurisdiction.
As such, this petition must necessarily fail, as this Court does not have original jurisdiction over a petition for
declaratory relief even if only questions of law are involved.

While we have recognized in the past that we can exercise the discretion and rulemaking authority we are granted
under the Constitution, and set aside procedural considerations to permit parties to bring a suit before us at the
first instance through certiorari and/or prohibition, this liberal policy remains to be an exception to the general
rule, and thus, has its limits.

The petitioner’s unusual approaches and use of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court do not appear to us to be the result
of any error in reading Rule 65, given the way the petition was crafted. Rather, it was a backdoor approach to
achieve what the petitioner could not directly do in his individual capacity under Rule 65. It was, at the very least,
an attempted bypass of other available modes of review. The transgressions alleged in a petition, however weighty
they may sound, cannot be justifications for blatantly disregarding the rules of procedure, particularly when
remedial measures were available under these same rules to achieve the petitioner’s objectives. For our part, we
cannot and should not – in the name of liberality and the "transcendental importance" doctrine – entertain these
types of petitions.

"while the Court has taken an increasingly liberal approach to the rule of locus standi, evolving from the stringent
requirements of ‘personal injury’ to the broader ‘transcendental importance’ doctrine, such liberality is not to be
abused”

Remedies for invoking judicial review

A. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65
Rule 65
S1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board
or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
has acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a
verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts
with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal,
board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as
law and justice may require.
Rule 45
S1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party
desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final
order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts
whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme
Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The
petition shall raise only questions of law which must be
distinctly set forth.

The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true

copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject
thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant
and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-
forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of
section 3, Rule 46.

S2. Petition for prohibition. — When the proceedings of

any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person,
whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions, are without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is
no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and
praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent to desist from further proceedings in the
action or matter specified therein, or otherwise
granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may
require.

The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a

certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution
subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents
relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn
certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the
third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.

S3. Petition for mandamus. — When any tribunal,

corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from
the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such
other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in
the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and
praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent, immediately or at some other time to be
specified by the court, to do the act required to be done
to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the
damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the
wrongful acts of the respondent.
The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of
non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph
of section 3, Rule 46.

Appeal by Certiorari (Rule 45) Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65)

Scope Involves the review of the
judgment, award or final order on
the merits
Basis Petition is based on questions of law
Whether mode of appeal or review Mode of appeal; SC is exercising
appellate jurisdiction
Directed agaist an interlocutory
order of the court, or where the
judgment or final order was
rendered without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction and, there is
no appeal or any other plain, speedy
or adequate remedy
Petition if based on questions of
jurisdiction
Mode of review; SC is exercising
original jurisdiction.

It is an independent special civil

Time of filing Within 15 days from notice of
judgment appealed from
Parties involved Appellant and appellee are the
original parties to the action, and
the lower court or quasi-judicial
agency is not impleaded
action not a continuation of the
original action
Filed not later than 60 days from
notice of judgment sought to be
reviewed
Petitioner and private respondents
are the original parties to the civil
action
Judge, court, quasi-agency, tribunal
 or person shall be impleaded as
public respondents

Where to file Filed with the SC Filed with the RTC, CA,
Sandiganbayan, SC

B. Declaratory Relief
R63 S1. Who may file petition. — Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument,
or 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.
An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to
consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule.

C. Others