You are on page 1of 2

ISSUE ON CERTIORARI

Rule 65 of the Rules of Court requires a petition for certiorari to comply with certain
basic requirements, namely:

a. The petition is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or


quasi-judicial functions;
b. Such Tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
c. There is no appeal, or any plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law (Bordomeo v. Court of Appeals, 691 SCRA 269, 286-287,
February 20, 2013).

A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary prerogative writ that is never demandable as


a matter of right (Indoyon, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, SCRA 201, 2019, March 12, 2013).

As abovementioned, certiorari would only apply if there is grave abuse of


discretion. In the given case, the petitioners failed to prove the existence of such grave
abuse done by the legislature.

The acceptance of a petition for certiorari, and the giving of due course thereto, is
addressed to the sound discretion of the court. The court may dismiss the petition on the
following grounds:

a. There is no showing of a grave abuse of discretion by any court, agency, or


branch of the government; or
b. There are procedural errors, such as violation of the Rules of Court or Supreme
Court circulars, like the failure to implead the private respondent, failure to
attach the pleadings and documents relevant to the petition, failure to file a
motion for reconsideration, or failure to allege material dates in the petition
(Abdulrahman v. the Office of the Ombudsman).

Since the petitioners failed to show the presence of grave abuse of discretion in
the passage of R.A. 10996, the said petition for certiorari is without merit and should be
dismissed.
ISSUE ON LOCUS STANDI

Petition should be dismissed as Petitioner Conscience Core has no locus standi.

In the case of Atty. Oliver O. Lozano and Atty. Evangeline J. Lozano-Endriano v.


Speaker Prospero C. Nograles, G.R. No. 187883 and G.R. No. 187910, June 16, 2009:

The rule on locus standi is not a plain procedural rule but a constitutional
requirement derived from Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, which
mandates courts of justice to settle only actual controversies involving rights which
are legally demandable and enforceable.

A party will be allowed to litigate only when he can demonstrate that (1) he
has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly
illegal conduct of the government; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged
action; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by the remedy being sought. In
the cases at bar, petitioners have not shown the elemental injury in fact that would
endow them with the standing to sue. Locus standi requires a personal stake in
the outcome of a controversy for significant reasons. It assures adverseness and
sharpens the presentation of issues for the illumination of the Court in resolving
difficult constitutional questions. The lack of petitioners’ personal stake or direct
damage to be incurred composes a petition that is devoid of any legal or
jurisprudential basis.

Moreover, 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. It is not an open invitation for the ignorant and the ignoble to file petitions
that prove nothing but their cerebral deficit.

You might also like