G.R. No. 217508 - JOSEPH SCOTT PEMBERTON, VS. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, JUDGE ROLINE GINEZ- JABALDE, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 74 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF OLONGAPO CITY, AND MARILOU LAUDE Y SERDONCILLO.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Libr

Ruling

accordingly in the future. Seventh, petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that could free them from the injurious effects of respondents' acts in violation of their right to freedom of expression. In this case, the repercussions of the assailed issuances on this basic right constitute an exceptionally compelling reason to justify the direct resort to this court. The lack of other sufficient remedies in the course of law alone is sufficient ground to allow direct resort to this court. Eighth, the petition includes questions that are "dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy." In the past, questions similar to these which this court ruled on immediately despite the doctrine of hierarchy of courts included citizens' right to bear arms, government contracts involving modernization of voters' registration lists, and the status and existence of a public office. This case also poses a question of similar, if not greater import. Hence, a direct action to this court is permitted. It is not, however, necessary that all of these exceptions must occur at the same time to justify a direct resort to this court. While generally, the hierarchy of courts is respected, the present case falls under the recognized exceptions and, as such, may be resolved by this court directly. [49] A direct invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons clearly and specifically set out in the petition. [50] In this case, petitioner alleges that the case against him has been scheduled for an expedited trial. [51] Thus, petitioner claims that it is necessary "to expeditiously arrive at a definitive ruling as to whether . . . respondent [De Lima] committed grave abuse of discretion . . . in issuing the [a]ssailed [r]esolutions." [52] In his view, a direct invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction is necessary. Petitioner argues that without this Court's intervention, a situation may result where "the trial has already concluded[,] while the issue on whether there exists probable cause to charge [petitioner] with the crime of murder . . . has not been settled with finality." [53] This argument is completely bereft of merit. It is not clear why any action by the Court of Appeals, which has concurrent original jurisdiction in petitions for certiorari under Rule 65, cannot be considered as sufficient for review of petitioner's case. Furthermore, the possibility of the conclusion of the trial of the case against petitioner is not a reason that is special and important enough to successfully invoke this Court's original jurisdiction. Once there has been a judicial finding of probable cause, an executive determination of prob