Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Carpio-Morales v. CA
Jurisdiction of CA over the OMB
Section 14, RA 6770, or the Ombudsman
Act,118 which reads in full:
Section 14. Restrictions. - No writ of injunction
shall be issued by any court to delay an
investigation being conducted by the
Ombudsman under this Act, unless there is a
prima facie evidence that the subject matter of
the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of
the Office of the Ombudsman.
No court shall hear any appeal or application
for remedy against the decision or findings of
the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court,
on pure question of law.
However, because of the of the
unconstitutionality of the second paragraph of
Section 14, RA 6770, the Court, consistent with
existing jurisprudence, concludes that the CA
has subject matter jurisdiction over the main
CA-G.R. SP No. 139453 petition. That being
said, the Court now examines the objections of
the Ombudsman, this time against the CA's
authority to issue the assailed TRO and WPI
against the implementation of the preventive
suspension order, incidental to that main case.
Writs issued by CA
Hence, with Congress interfering with matters
of procedure (through passing the first
Leviste v. Alameda
People v. Serzo
Habeas Corpus
Ampatuan v. Macaraig
In matters involving the exercise of judgment
and discretion, mandamus cannot be used to
direct the manner or the particular way the
judgment and discretion are to be exercised.
Consequently, the Secretary of Justice may be
compelled by writ of mandamus to act on a
letter-request or a motion to include a person
in the information, but may not be compelled
by writ of mandamus to act in a certain way,
i.e., to grant or deny such letter- request or
motion.