Proper remedy to attack quasi-legislative function
A petition for prohibition is also NOT the proper remedy to assail implementing rules and regulations (IRRs) issued in the exercise of a quasi-legislative function.Prohibition is an extraordinary writ directed against any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, ordering said entity or person to desist from further proceedings when said proceedings are without or in excess of said entity's or person's jurisdiction, or are accompanied with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[1] Prohibition lies against judicial or ministerial functions, but not against legislative or quasi-legislative functions.
Generally, the purpose of a writ of prohibition is to keep a lower court within the limits of its jurisdiction in order to maintain the administration of justice in orderly channels.[2] Prohibition is the proper remedy to afford relief against usurpation of jurisdiction or power by an inferior court, or when, in the exercise of jurisdiction in handling matters clearly within its cognizance the inferior court transgresses the bounds prescribed to it by the law, or where there is no adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law by which such relief can be obtained.[3]ALSO READ: G.R. No. 210987. November 24, 2014 - Project Jurisprudence.
Where the principal relief sought is to invalidate an IRR, petitioners' remedy is an ordinary action for its nullification, an action which properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. For example, an allegation that "respondents are performing or threatening to perform functions without or in excess of their jurisdiction" may appropriately be enjoined by the trial court through a writ of injunction or a temporary restraining order. (G.R. No. 163980. Aug 3, 2006. 529 Phil. 573)
[1] Rules of Court, Rule 65, Sec. 2.
[2] David v. Rivera, G.R. Nos. 139913 & 140159, January 16, 2004, 420 SCRA 90, 100.
[3] Id.
ALSO READ: G.R. No. 196231. January 28, 2014 - Project Jurisprudence.
