This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-11-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Constitution[62] grants to the Court original jurisdiction over petitions for prohibition. Although this original jurisdiction over petitions for prohibition (together with petitions for certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus) is concurrent with that of the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals, the established policy is that this Court allows the direct invocation of its original jurisdiction "if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, warrant,"[63] or "in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations so as to promptly put an end to the present controversy."[64] This policy has been applied by the Court in exceptional cases, among them, People v. Cuaresma,[65] Santiago v. Vasquez,[66] Manalo v. Gloria,[67] Philippine National Bank v. Sayo, Jr.,[68] Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources,[69] Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Zamora,[70] and Government of the United States of America v. Purganan.[71] | |||||