"x x x.
Propriety of Certiorari
Public respondents aver that a petition for certiorari is not proper in this case, as there is no indication that the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board, or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, as required in certiorari proceedings.[10] Conversely, petitioner for his part claims that certiorari is proper under Section 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution, which provides in part:
Section 7. x x x. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
Petitioner is correct in that decisions and orders of the COA are reviewable by the court via a petition for certiorari. However, these refer to decisions and orders which were rendered by the COA in its quasi-judicial capacity. Circular No. 89-299 was promulgated by the COA under its quasi-legislative or rule-making powers. Hence, Circular No. 89-299 is not reviewable by certiorari.
Neither is a petition for prohibition appropriate in this case. A petition for prohibition is filed against any tribunal, corporation, board, or person — whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions — who has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and the petitioner prays that judgment be rendered, commanding the respondent to desist from further proceeding in the action or matter specified in the petition.[11] However, prohibition only lies against judicial or ministerial functions, but not against legislative or quasi-legislative functions.[12]
Nonetheless, this Court has in the past seen fit to step in and resolve petitions despite their being the subject of an improper remedy, in view of the public importance of the issues raised therein.[13] In this case, petitioner avers that the conduct of pre-audit by the COA could have prevented the occurrence of the numerous alleged irregularities in government transactions that involved substantial amounts of public money. This is a serious allegation of a grave deficiency in observing a constitutional duty if proven correct.
This Court can use its authority to set aside errors of practice or technicalities of procedure, including the aforementioned technical defects of the Petition, and resolve the merits of a case with such serious allegations of constitutional breach. Rules of procedure were promulgated to provide guidelines for the orderly administration of justice, not to shackle the hand that dispenses it.[14]
x x x."
