The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge with plunder the provincial governor, vice governor, treasurer, budget officer, and accountant, but the treasurer received immunity. The governor filed a petition for certiorari challenging the exclusion of the treasurer. Is this remedy correct?

The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge with plunder the provincial governor, vice governor, treasurer, budget officer, and accountant, but the treasurer received immunity. The governor filed a petition for certiorari challenging the exclusion of the treasurer. Is this remedy correct?

• A. Yes, the petition for certiorari is proper to challenge grave abuse.
• B. No, certiorari is not proper because there is a plain, speedy, adequate remedy by a motion for reconsideration.
• C. Yes, because immunity can be challenged on certiorari.
• D. No, mandamus would lie to compel inclusion.

Answer: (B)

Certiorari is reserved for correcting grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction when there is no adequate ordinary remedy. Here, there is an available plain, speedy, and adequate remedy: a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s resolution to immunize the treasurer. Since the parties can seek reconsideration within the same administrative process (and, if necessary, escalate after a denial), certiorari is not the proper initial vehicle. The court would only entertain certiorari if the remedy by reconsideration is inadequate or exhausted. Thus the governor’s challenge to the immunity through certiorari isn’t proper because a motion for reconsideration provides an appropriate, immediate avenue to contest the immunity ruling. If that remedy fails, certiorari remains available later. Mandamus would not lie to compel inclusion because the Ombudsman’s action involves discretionary judgment, not a ministerial duty to include a particular person in the charge.

Certiorari is reserved for correcting grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction when there is no adequate ordinary remedy. Here, there is an available plain, speedy, and adequate remedy: a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s resolution to immunize the treasurer. Since the parties can seek reconsideration within the same administrative process (and, if necessary, escalate after a denial), certiorari is not the proper initial vehicle. The court would only entertain certiorari if the remedy by reconsideration is inadequate or exhausted. Thus the governor’s challenge to the immunity through certiorari isn’t proper because a motion for reconsideration provides an appropriate, immediate avenue to contest the immunity ruling. If that remedy fails, certiorari remains available later. Mandamus would not lie to compel inclusion because the Ombudsman’s action involves discretionary judgment, not a ministerial duty to include a particular person in the charge.