G.R. No. 207145 , July 28, 2015
Gil G. Cawad, et al. and the Philippine Public Health Association, Inc. vs. Florencio B. Abad, as Secretary of the DBM, et al.

FACTS

The petitioners, officers and members of the Philippine Public Health Association, Inc., filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Supreme Court assailing the validity of Joint Circular No. 1 dated November 29, 2012 of the DBM and DOH, and a Joint Circular dated September 3, 2012 of the DBM and CSC. The petitioners claimed these circulars diminished benefits granted by the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers (RA 7305). Specifically, they alleged the circulars: (1) imposed an additional “actual exposure to danger” requirement for hazard pay not found in RA 7305; (2) fixed subsistence allowance rates not in accordance with prevailing circumstances; (3) prematurely took effect; and (4) wrongfully limited longevity pay and withheld step increments. Prior to filing, the petitioners sent a letter to the respondents expressing their opposition. The ponencia characterized the assailed acts as quasi-legislative in nature.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should take jurisdiction over and resolve a petition for certiorari and prohibition that assails quasi-legislative acts, despite such writs traditionally being improper remedies for challenging such acts.

RULING

In his Separate Opinion, Justice Brion agreed with the ponencia’s conclusion that a writ of certiorari or prohibition is an improper remedy to directly assail the quasi-legislative joint circulars before the Court. The traditional and proper remedy would be an ordinary action for nullification filed with the proper Regional Trial Court. He noted that despite this impropriety, the ponencia proceeded to decide the case’s substantive issues, a approach with precedent where the Court has relaxed Rule 65 requirements by invoking the “transcendental nature and paramount importance” of the issues or “compelling state interest.” Justice Brion questioned this approach, arguing that the public importance of resolving issues in a petition should not determine the Court’s jurisdiction, as it has no essential relation to the existence of an “actual controversy” required for the exercise of judicial power under the Constitution. He emphasized that any deviation from a law carries public importance, but that does not alter the fundamental requirements for judicial review. The ponencia partially granted the petition, invalidating aspects of the circulars on hazard pay and step increments, and upholding other provisions.