Case: INMATES OF THE NEW BILIBID PRISON VS SEC DE LIMA- DOJ & SEC

ROXAS II- DILG l GR no. 212719 Prohibition is not applicable against quasi-legislative functions because it is a remedy that
Date: June 25, 2019 l Ponente: Peralta, J.:
Subject: Characteristics of Penal Laws specifically applies to judicial or ministerial functions, but not to legislative or quasi-legislative
Sub-topic:
functions. Prohibition is a preventive remedy aimed at restraining future actions of a court or
Digested by: Shiela Maquiling
tribunal. It is used when the court or tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction or acts in a manner that

is considered a grave abuse of discretion.

What is the purpose of a petition for prohibition and when is it considered as the proper

remedy? Since quasi-legislative functions involve the exercise of rule-making authority to create rules

and regulations, these functions are not subject to the same limitations as judicial or
The purpose of a petition for prohibition is to prevent an entity or person, whether exercising
ministerial functions. While prohibition may be used against judicial or ministerial functions, it
judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions, from continuing or proceeding with actions
is not an appropriate remedy to challenge the validity of an administrative rule or regulation
that are without or in excess of their jurisdiction, or accompanied by grave abuse of
issued in the exercise of quasi-legislative functions.
discretion. It is a preventative remedy aimed at restraining future action by the court or

tribunal itself. Instead, the proper remedy to challenge the validity of an administrative rule or regulation

issued in the exercise of quasi-legislative functions is through an ordinary action for its
A petition for prohibition is considered as the proper remedy when there is no other plain,
nullification, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. Alternatively, an
speedy, and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law to address the
injunction or a temporary restraining order may be obtained from the trial court to prevent or
usurpation of jurisdiction or power by an inferior court or when the court transgresses the
stop the enforcement of the rule or regulation if it is believed to be invalid.
bounds prescribed to it by law. It is also an appropriate remedy when the principal relief

sought is to invalidate an administrative issuance, such as an Implementing Rules and To summarize, prohibition is not applicable against quasi-legislative functions because it is a

Regulations (IRR), which falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. [7] remedy that applies to judicial or ministerial functions and not to the rule-making authority

What is a quasi-legislative function and why is prohibition not applicable against it? exercised by administrative agencies or bodies.

A quasi-legislative function refers to the exercise of rule-making authority by an What is the argument of the petitioners in the case of Roxas et al. and why do they have

administrative agency or body, wherein it formulates rules, regulations, or implementing legal standing?

guidelines to implement and give effect to a specific law. This function allows administrative The petitioners in the case of Roxas et al. argue that the Implementing Rules and Regulations

agencies to fill in the details and set specific guidelines for the proper enforcement and (IRR) of Republic Act No. 10592 contradict the law it implements by directing the prospective

execution of the law. application of the grant of good conduct time allowance (GCTA), time allowance for study,

teaching and mentoring (TASTM), and special time allowance for loyalty (STAL). They contend
that the provisions of R.A. No. 10592 should be given retroactive effect in accordance with Why is there an actual case or controversy in the case at bar and why is it important to

Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) because they are penal in nature and beneficial to resolve it in a timely manner?

the inmates. The petitioners question why it would be difficult for the Bureau of Corrections
There is an actual case or controversy in the case at bar because there is a disagreement
(BUCOR) and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) to retroactively apply the
between the petitioners and respondents regarding the constitutional validity of the
law when the prisoners' records are complete and the differences between the relevant
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 10592. The petitioners argue
provisions of the RPC and R.A. No. 10592 are easily identifiable. They argue that the simple
that the IRR contradicts the law it implements by directing the prospective application of
standards added by the new law, which are matters of record, and the creation of the
certain time allowances for prisoners instead of retroactive application. They claim that this
Management, Screening, and Evaluation Committee (MSEC) should not override the
violates Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code and the constitutional guarantee of the rights to
constitutional guarantee of the rights to liberty and due process of law, as well as the
liberty and due process of law. On the other hand, the respondents argue that the petitioners'
principle that penal laws beneficial to the accused should be given retroactive effect. [3]
claim of injury is premature and speculative since the Management, Screening, and
The petitioners have legal standing because they are directly affected by Section 4, Rule 1 of
Evaluation Committee (MSEC), which is responsible for evaluating the applications for time
the IRR, as they are prisoners serving their respective sentences at the New Bilibid Prison
allowances, has not been constituted yet, and none of the petitioners have applied for the
(NBP). They argue that their continued incarceration, if the IRR is upheld, is oppressive and
revised credits.
causes them immediate and direct injury. The court recognizes that there is an actual case or
It is important to resolve this case in a timely manner because it directly affects the rights and
controversy in the present case, as the legal rights of the parties can be interpreted and
freedom of the petitioners and other similarly situated prisoners. The outcome of this case
enforced based on existing laws and jurisprudence. The challenged regulation has a direct
will determine whether or not the provision of the IRR that allows prospective application of
adverse effect on the petitioners and other similarly situated detained and convicted
time allowances is constitutional. If the Court deems the provision unconstitutional and
prisoners. The petitioners' personal stake in the outcome of the case, as their release from
orders retroactive application, it may result in the early release of the petitioners and other
prison may potentially be shortened or delayed, supports their legal standing. The submission
prisoners who are eligible for time allowances under R.A. No. 10592. On the other hand, if the
of certified prison records is immaterial in determining whether their rights were breached by
Court upholds the constitutionality of the provision, the petitioners and other prisoners will
the IRR, as the possible violation has already occurred with the issuance of the IRR. [5][6]
remain incarcerated for the duration of their original sentences.

Furthermore, the timely resolution of this case is important to prevent prolonged illegal

confinement or detention of the petitioners. The longer the case remains unresolved, the

greater the prejudice and hardship suffered by the petitioners, who are currently languishing
in jail. Justice demands that they be released as soon as possible if their assertion is proven to

be true. Resolving the case in a timely manner ensures that their rights to liberty and due

process of law are protected and that they are not subjected to extended confinement based

on an allegedly unconstitutional provision. Therefore, it is crucial for the Court to promptly

address and settle the legal issue raised by the petitioners in order to uphold fairness and

justice for all parties involved.