EN BANC
[G.R. No. 219621. June 28, 2016.]
DR. GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA, DR. MARGARITA R. COJUANGCO, BISHOP REUBEN M. ABANTE, QUINTIN P. SAN DIEGO, REV. JOSE L. GONZALES, and ATTY. GLENN A. CHONG, CPA, petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and/or OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and/or SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA, PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON AQUINO III, BUDGET SECRETARY FLORENCIO ABAD, SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DRILON, and OTHER SENATORS CONCERNED, represented by the Senate President, SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR. and OTHER REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNED, represented by the Speaker, House of Representatives, IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES and/or HEADS CONCERNED, represented by Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Jr., EX-SENATORS, EX-REPRESENTATIVES, and NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS and/or OFFICERS CONCERNED, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JUNE 28, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 219621 (DR. GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA, DR. MARGARITA R. COJUANGCO, BISHOP REUBEN M. ABANTE, QUINTIN P. SAN DIEGO, REV. JOSE L. GONZALES, and ATTY. GLENN A. CHONG, CPA, petitioners, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and/or OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and/or SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA, PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON AQUINO III, BUDGET SECRETARY FLORENCIO ABAD, SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DRILON, and OTHER SENATORS CONCERNED, represented by the Senate President, SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR. and OTHER REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNED, represented by the Speaker, House of Representatives, IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES and/or HEADS CONCERNED, represented by Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Jr., EX-SENATORS, EX-REPRESENTATIVES, and NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS and/or OFFICERS CONCERNED, respondents.) — This resolves a Petition for mandamus1 with preliminary mandatory injunction, praying that the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) and the Department of Justice be ordered to investigate, remove and/or file the appropriate actions against all the erring public officials and personalities, in relation to the Disbursement Acceleration Program's (DAP) and the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).
On November 13, 2013, this Court promulgated Belgica v. Ochoa, 2 which declared unconstitutional the PDAF and "past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws." 3 During the controversy involving the PDAF, several cases were filed against public officials involving the illegal use of the PDAF. 4 On July 1, 2014, this Court promulgated Araullo v. Aquino, 5 which declared unconstitutional certain acts and practices under the DAP. 6
Petitioners allege that on July 3, 2014, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales declared that her office would probe crimes or liabilities committed in connection with the DAP. 7 Petitioners further allege that Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima (Justice Secretary) stated that no more new charges would be brought in connection with the alleged misuse of the PDAF. 8 In a letter 9 dated December 3, 2014, some of the petitioners asked the Ombudsman to "investigate, suspend and prosecute all those probably liable for the DAP fiasco[.]" 10 From July 3, 2014, until petitioners filed the present Petition on August 26, 2015, petitioners did not learn of any investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman. 11 The Justice Secretary, on the other hand, filed three (3) batches of PDAF-related complaints before the Ombudsman. 12
Sometime in September 2015, the Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman finished its fact-finding investigation on the use of the DAP funds for 2011 to 2012. 13 "Department of Budget and Management . . . Secretary Florencio Abad and Undersecretary Mario Relampagos are under preliminary investigation for Technical Malversation and administrative charges." 14
Hence, this Petition was filed.
In the Resolution 15 dated September 8, 2015, this Court required respondents to comment on the Petition. On February 3, 2016, respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed their Comment. 16 AaCTcI
Petitioners assert that this Petition is the proper remedy as it involves respondents' neglect of the performance of duties resulting from their office, particularly in connection with the pronouncements in Araullo and Belgica. 17 They invoke transcendental importance and claim that the issues affect the nation's political, social, and economic life. 18 Petitioners claim that a justiciable case exists as petitioners' and respondents' opinions on the controversy would be "as diverse and antagonistic as may be imagined." 19 Further, this case is ripe for adjudication due to respondents' delay. 20 The rule on hierarchy of courts may be dispensed with in view of the billions of pesos of taxpayers' money involved. 21 Petitioners possess locus standi as citizen-taxpayers. 22
Likewise, petitioners enumerate various powers of the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice, and maintain that the Ombudsman and the Justice Secretary may be compelled through mandamus to perform all their powers. 23 Citing Araullo, petitioners reason that this Court "thought of investigation/s being launched — as in the PDAFs-related cases — against the DAP's authors." 24 Petitioners assert that Belgica, where this Court directed the prosecutorial organs of government to investigate and prosecute government officials in relation to the pork barrel system, lends credence to this case. 25 Petitioners claim that the Ombudsman and the Justice Secretary neglected their duties despite Araullo: the Ombudsman, through inaction or inordinate delay in investigating possible crimes committed in relation to the DAP; and the Justice Secretary, through filing only three (3) batches of complaints related to the PDAF. 26
Respondents assert that no justiciable case exists as petitioners have no clear legal right to compel a discretionary act from the Ombudsman and the Justice Secretary. 27 Petitioners have no legal standing as they failed to show that they "have sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result of respondents' alleged refusal to investigate and/or prosecute the perpetrators of the DAP and PDAF." 28 Respondents claim that petitioners cannot sue as taxpayers in the absence of a credible allegation of an illegal or unconstitutional disbursement of public funds. 29 Petitioners made "no effort to show any compelling reason for their direct resort" to this Court, thus violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. 30
Moreover, respondents stress that the powers to investigate and prosecute require the exercise of sound judgment and are not ministerial duties that can be subject of a petition for mandamus. 31 Respondents also point out that declarations of unconstitutionality, such as those in Araullo and Belgica, are not equivalent to a declaration of possible criminal liability. 32
We dismiss the Petition for lack of merit.
Rule 65, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus. — When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station . . . and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. EcTCAD
Thus, this Court will only issue a writ of mandamus if the petitioner has shown that: (1) there is a clear legal right to the act demanded; 33 (2) the respondent has the duty to perform the act because it is mandated by law; 34 (3) the respondent has unlawfully neglected the performance of the duty enjoined by law; 35 (4) the act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary; 36 and (5) there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 37
Petitioners have not established any of the foregoing requisites. They have not shown a clear legal right to the act demanded. Although the Ombudsman and the Justice Secretary have the duty to investigate and prosecute cases, they have not been shown to unlawfully neglect the performance of these duties. The acts sought to be performed are discretionary, not ministerial. In the guise of a mandamus petition, we cannot preempt the actions of the Ombudsman.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court resolves to DISMISS the Petition for lack of merit." Del Castillo, J., on leave. (36)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-55, Petition. The Petition was filed under Rule 65, Section 3 of the Rules of Court.
2. 721 Phil. 416 (2013) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].
3. Rollo, p. 139, Comment.
4. Id. at 140.
5. G.R. Nos. 209287, 209135-36, 209155, 209164, 209260, 209442, 209517, and 209569, July 1, 2014, 728 SCRA 1 [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].
6. Rollo, p. 140.
7. Id. at 21, Petition.
8. Id.
9. Id. at 23-24.
10. Id. at 23.
11. Id. at 23-24.
12. Id. at 24.
13. Id. at 141, Comment.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 105.
16. Id. at 138-153.
17. Id. at 26-29.
18. Id. at 30.
19. Id. at 3.
20. Id. at 33.
21. Id.
22. Id. at 34.
23. Id. at 38-41.
24. Id. at 28.
25. Id. at 15-17.
26. Id. at 24.
27. Id. at 142, Comment.
28. Id. at 143.
29. Id.
30. Id. at 144.
31. Id. at 144-146.
32. Id. at 146.
33. Special People, Inc. Foundation v. Canda, 701 Phil. 365, 386 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
34. Uy Kiao Eng v. Lee, 624 Phil. 200, 207 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
35. Id. at 206-207.
36. Special People, Inc. Foundation v. Canada, 701 Phil. 365, 387 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
37. Uy Kiao Eng v. Lee, 624 Phil. 200, 209 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].