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
mandamus 1 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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. ANAMA

Clerk 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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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].

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com