Senator Leila De Lima

vs. Hon. Juanita Guerrero

FACTS:

Legislative inquiries were conducted due to the proliferation of dangerous drugs syndicated at the New Bilibid Prison.
This led to the filing of four complaints with the DOJ, all against Senator Leila De Lima. During hearing, petitioner decided
not to submit her counter-affidavit. The DOJ did not entertain belatedly filed counter-affidavits and declared all pending
incidents and cases as submitted for resolution.

De Lima then filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for prohibition and certiorari assailing the jurisdiction of the
DOJ panel over the complaints against her. The DOJ proceeded in conducting preliminary investigation and
recommended the filing of 3 informations against the petitioner before the RTC of Muntinlupa. One of the informations
was raffled off to Branch 204, presided by respondent judge.

This information charged De Lima for violation of R.A. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. She
allegedly committed illegal drug trading by taking advantage of her position as then DOJ Secretary, conspiring and
confederating with BuCor OIC Ragos by demanding, soliciting, and extorting money from the high profile inmates of the
NBP to support her senatorial bid in May 2016 election.

De Lima filed a Motion to Quash averring that the RTC lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged. Three days from such
filing, respondent judge issued warrants of arrest against petitioner and her co-accused. Tihe warrant was served to her
the next day and she was committed to the custody of the PNP Custodial Center.

Petitioner petitioned the SC for a writ of certiorari, prohibition, preliminary injunction and a TRO and status quo ante
order.

Issues:
1. WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case
2.
 OMBUDSMAN Carpio-Morales v. CA and Jejomar Binay G.R. Nos. 217126-27

FACTS:

A complaint/affidavit was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against Binay, Jr. and other public officers and
employees of the City Government of Makati (Binay, Jr., et al), accusing them of Plunder and violation of RA 3019,
otherwise known as “The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,” in connection with the five phases of the procurement
and construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building.

Before Binay, Jr., et al.’s filing of their counter-affidavits, the Ombudsman issued the order placing Binay, Jr., et al. under
preventive suspension for not more than six months without pay, during the pendency of the OMB Cases.

The Ombudsman ruled that the requisites for the preventive suspension of a public officer are present, and that their
continued stay in office may prejudice the investigation relative to the OMB Cases filed against them.

Binay, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari before the CA seeking the nullification of the preventive suspension order, and
praying for the issuance of a TRO and/or WPI to enjoin its implementation.

Primarily, Binay, Jr. argued that he could not be held administratively liable for any anomalous activity attending any of
the five phases of the Makati Parking Building project since: (a) Phases I and II were undertaken before he was elected
Mayor of Makati in 2010; and (b) Phases III to V transpired during his first term and that his re-election as City Mayor of
Makati for a second term effectively condoned his administrative liability therefor, if any, thus rendering the
administrative cases against him moot and academic.

Prior to the hearing of the oral arguments before the CA, the Ombudsman filed the present petition before this Court,
assailing the CA’s Resolution, which granted Binay, Jr.’s prayer for TRO.

The Ombudsman claims that the CA had no jurisdiction to grant Binay, Jr.’s prayer for a TRO.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the CA has subject matter jurisdiction over the main petition for certiorari?
2. Whether or not the CA has subject matter jurisdiction to issue a TRO and/or WPI enjoining the implementation
of a preventive suspension order issued by the Ombudsman?

RULING:

1. YES.

Section 14 of RA 6770, particularly the second paragraph provides that no appeal or application for remedy may
be heard against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, with the exception of the SC on pure questions of
law. This attempts to effectively increase the SC’s appellate jurisdiction without its advice and concurrence. The
SC therefore declared such provision unconstitutional. While the special action for certiorari is within the
concurrent jurisdiction of the SC and the CA, such petition should be initially filed with the CA in observance of
the hierarchy of courts. Thus, with the unconstitutionality of the 2 nd paragraph of section 4 of RA 6770, the CA
has subject matter jurisdiction over the main petition for certiorari.

2. YES.

Considering the unconstitutionality of the second paragraph of section 14 of RA 6770 which affirms the
jurisdiction of the CA over the subject matter, the CA also has, incidental to its general jurisdiction, the inherent
power to do all things reasonably necessary to the administration of justice in the case before it, such as that of
issuing a TRO or a WPI. In relation to the prohibition under RA 6770 section 14 paragraph 1, the SC said that
when Congress passed said provision, the latter encroached upon the power of the judiciary, particularly the
Supreme Court, to solely promulgate rules of procedure, as granted by the Constitution. It appears to be a
violation of the separation of powers principle. The SC has not implemented any rules of procedure regarding
the prohibition against courts other than itself from issuing provisional injunctive writs to enjoin investigations
conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman. The SC thus declares such provision ineffective.