here - Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

Petitioners are well aware of the principle of hierarchy of courts, and that
petitions for mandamus could be filed with the Regional Trial Court 77 or the Court of
Appeals, 78 both of which have concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court with
respect to the issuance of writs of mandamus and prohibition.
However, Petitioners respectfully submit that the principle of hierarchy of courts
applies only to cases involving factual issues 79 , and the Supreme Court can directly take
cognizance of a case where the issues involved are of transcendental importance to the
public, 80 or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availment of a
remedy within and calling for the exercise of the Supreme Court’s primary jurisdiction. 81
The instant Petition involves only questions of law. In particular, it calls for the
delimitation of the scope and extent of the rights to information and effective
participation invoked by petitioners as against the implied assertion by respondents of the
inapplicability of said rights in the process of treaty-making. It does not call for any
factual finding as the entire factual foundation rests on official acts and matters of public
record.
Apart from the fact that there are no factual issues in this case, this petition
involves a case that directly involves the public interest. In a more recent case involving
the legality of the PIATCO contract to the build the NAIA III terminal, the Court ruled
that a party can go directly to the Supreme Court when there are no factual issues
involved and the case concerns public interest:
“Respondents’ corollary contention that this Court violated the
hierarchy of courts when it entertained the cases at bar must also fail. The
rule on hierarchy of courts in cases falling within the concurrent
jurisdiction of the trial courts and appellate courts generally applies to
cases involving warring factual allegations. x x x.”
“It goes without saying that when cases brought before the
appellate courts do not involve factual but legal questions, a strict
application of the rule of hierarchy of courts is not necessary. As the cases
77
R.A. 7691, Section 21 (1).
78
R.A. 7902, Section 9 (1).
79
Chavez v. PEA-Amari, supra.
80
Ibid.
81
Santiago v. Vasquez, et. al., G.R. Nos. 99289-90, 27 January 1992, 205 SCRA 162
34