Galicto vs.

Aquino III
G. R. 193978
28 February 2012
Digest by: Aaron Gabriel H. Santos

FACTS:

• In his 1st SONA, PNOY said that there is an excessive bonuses granted to the officers
of the various GOCCs and GFIs.
• This prompted Senate to conduct an Inquiry in Aid of Legislation in order to investigate
on the alleged excessive bonuses.
• As a result of this PNOY issued EO 07 which ordered a moratorium on the increase in
salaries and other forms of compensation and a suspension of all allowances, bonuses
and incentives of members of the BOD/BOT of the GOCCs and GFIs.
• Petitioner, employee of PHILHEALTH, filed an petition for Certiorari stating that
respondents abused their discretion in issuing the said EO.
• No lower court rulings because petition is straight to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

WON Petition for certiorari is proper.

HELD

NO. Certiorari is not proper because the questioned policy is an Executive Order. The
only thing that can be questioned by Certiorari under Rule 65 are orders of Judicial or
quasi-judicial bodies (Sec 1, Rule 65).

- Petitioner availed of the wrong remedy. What he should have done is file a petition for
Declaratory Relief under rule 63.
- “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.”