GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO VS.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE

BERSAMIN, J.:

FACTS:
Petitioner was charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan, after the prosecution rest
its case, petitioner file a demurer to evidence asserting that the prosecution did not
established a case for plunder against them. However, it was denied, likewise motion for
reconsideration was denied by Sandiganbayan. Hence, they file their respective petition
for certiorari to assail the denial of their demurer to evidence, on the ground of grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Which was granted by the
Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not special civil action for certiorari is proper remedy to assail the denial of
demurer to evidence.
RULING:
Yes. The denial of the demurrer to evidence of the petitioners was an interlocutory order
that did not terminate the proceedings, and the proper recourse of the demurring accused
was to go to trial, and that in case of their conviction they may then appeal the conviction,
and assign the denial as among the errors to be reviewed. Indeed, it is doctrinal that the
situations in which the writ of certiorari may issue should not be limited, because to do
so- xxx would be to destroy its comprehensiveness and usefulness. So wide it the
discretion of the com1 that authority is not wanting to show that certiorari is more
discretionary than either prohibition or mandamus.
Section 23, Rule 119 of the rules of court is not an insuperable obstacle to the review by
the court of the denial of the demurrer to evidence through certiorari. In Nicolas v
Sandiganbayan, the court expressly ruled that the petition for certiorari was the proper
remedy to assail the denial of the demurrer to evidence that was tainted with grave abuse
of discretion or excess of jurisdiction. Or oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
GRECO BELGICA VS. HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
G.R. NO. 208566 NOVEMBER 19 2013

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

FACTS:
1996 was the first controversy surrounding the Pork Barrel erupted, where it was alleged
that huge sum of government money went into the pocket of legislator in form of
kickbacks. In 2004 several concerned citizen sought the nullification of PDAF for being
unconstitutional, however it was dismissed for lack of pertinent evidentiary support for its
illegal misuse. Recently, NBI began its investigation against the JNL Corporation that was
allegedly swindled billions of pesos from the public coffers for ghost projects using no
fewer than 20 dummy NGO for an entire decade.
Spurred in large part by the findings contained in the CoA report and Napoles controversy,
several petitions were lodge before the court seeking that the Pork Barrel System be
declared unconstitutional.
ISSUE:
Whether or not issues raised involve an actual and justiciable controversy;
Whether or not issues raised are subject to judicial review;
Whether or not petitioners have legal standing to sue;
Whether or not previous court decision bar the re-litigation of the issue of constitutionality
of the pork barrel system under the principle of res judicata and stare decisis
RULING:
Yes. There is an actual and justiciable controversy. The requirement of contrariety of legal
rights is satisfied by the antagonistic positions of the parties regarding the constitutionality
of the pork barrel system. The case is ripe for adjudication since the challenged funds
and the laws allowing for their utilization are currently existing and operational and thereby
posing an immediate or threatened injury to petitioners. The case is not moot, the
president does not have constitutional authority to nullify or annul the legal existence of
the PDAF. Moreover, The moot and academic principle cannot stop the court from
deciding the case considering that: petitioners allege grave violation of the constitution;
the constitutionality of the pork barrel system presents a situation of exceptional character
and is a matter of paramount public interest; there is a practical need for a definitive ruling
on the system of constitutionality to guide the bench, the bar and the public and ; the
preparation and passage of the national budget is an annual occurrence.
Yes. The intrinsic constitutionality of the pork barrel system is not an issue dependent
upon the wisdom of the political branches of the government but rather legal one which
the constitution itself has commanded the court to act upon. In the case of Estrada v
Desierto expanded the concept of judicial power, the 1987 constitution has narrowed the
reach of the political question doctrine when it expanded the power of judicial review 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.

Yes. Petitioners have legal standing by virtue of being a taxpayer and citizens of the
Philippines. As taxpayer, they are bound to suffer from the unconstitutional usage of
public funds. As a citizen, the issues they have raised are matters of trancedental
importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.

No. The present case is not barred by the ruling in Pliconsa case because it was limited
response to a separation of powers problem, specifically on the propriety of conferring
post- enactment identification authority to members of congress. On the contrary, the
present cases involve more holistic examination of inter-relation between the CDF and
PDAF articles with each other, and; inter-relation of post- enactment measures contained
within a particular CDF or PDAF article including not only those related to the area of
project identification but also to areas of fund release and realignment. The LAMP case
does not bar the present case because it was dismissed on a procedural technicality and
hence no controlling doctrine was rendered.
SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE VS. RAYMONDO MANALO
G.R.NO. 180906 OCTOBER 7, 2008

PUNO, C, J.:

FACTS
Respondents were abducted by military men belonging to the CAFGU on the suspicion
that they were members and supporters of the NPA. After 18 months of detention and
torture, the brothers escaped on August 13, 2007.
Ten days after their escape, they filed a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary
Restraining Order to stop the military officers and agents from depriving them of their right
to liberty and other basic rights. While the said case was pending, the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo took effect on October 24, 2007. The Manalo’s subsequently filed a manifestation
and omnibus motion to treat their petition as an amparo petition.
The CA granted the privilege of the writ of amparo. Petitioner appealed to the SC seeking
to reverse and set aside the decision promulgated by the CA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not CA erred in granting the privilege of the writ of amparo
RULING
No. In upholding the CA decision, the Supreme Court ruled that there is a continuing
violation of the Manalo’s right to security. The Writ of Amparo is the most potent remedy
available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated or is
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission by public officials or employees
and by private individuals or entities. Understandably, since their escape, the Manalos
have been under concealment and protection by private citizens because of the threat to
their life, liberty, and security. The circumstances of respondents’ abduction, detention,
torture and escape reasonably support a conclusion that there is an apparent threat that
they will again be abducted, tortured, and this time, even executed. These constitute
threats to their liberty, security, and life, actionable through a petition for a writ of amparo.