Prohibition (Writ)

Also known as: Petition for prohibition — the pleading's name in Rule 65, Section 2 · Writ of prohibition — the common-law styling · Rule 65 prohibition petition — the practitioners' shorthand

Government

Definition

Prohibition is the extraordinary writ of Philippine procedure by which a superior court commands a tribunal, board, or officer to desist from further proceedings conducted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction — the sibling, in Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, of certiorari (annulment of what was done) and mandamus (command of what is not being done). Section 2 supplies the operative text: it lies “[w]hen the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person … are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,” praying for judgment “commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings.” (LawPhil — 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) The canonical formulation, in Ermita v. Delorino (G.R. No. 177130, June 7, 2011), is that prohibition is “an extraordinary writ … ordering said entity or person to desist from further proceedings when said proceedings are without or in excess of … jurisdiction.” (LawPhil — Ermita v. Delorino)

The writ is prospective, not retrospective — it arrests proceedings still under way, “to keep a lower court within the limits of its jurisdiction” — and since Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution made grave abuse of discretion a judicial question in every department, it has become a standard vehicle for that command, alongside the certiorari petition this wiki’s certiorari-under-rule-65 entry documents. (LawPhil — Ermita v. Delorino, LawPhil — 1987 Constitution)

Identities

Source Type	Identity
Wikipedia	Writ of prohibition (the canonical article title; “Prohibition (writ)” redirects to it)
Wikidata	Writ of prohibition (Q3724714)
DBpedia	Writ_of_prohibition (rdfs:label “Writ of prohibition”)
ProductOntology	Writ of prohibition (owl:Class, verified on the ontology endpoint)
Wiktionary	prohibition — English term carrying the general sense of forbidding by authority
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH)	Prohibition (Writ) (sh85107332)
MeSH	N/A
NCBI Taxonomy	N/A
AGROVOC	N/A
Google Scholar	writ of prohibition Rule 65 Philippines desist from further proceedings grave abuse of jurisdiction Angara Ermita Estrada Estipona
ConceptNet	N/A (ConceptNet API returned an error this session)
OpenCyc	N/A

Also Known As

Petition for prohibition — the pleading’s name in Rule 65, Section 2
Writ of prohibition — the common-law styling
Rule 65 prohibition petition — the practitioners’ shorthand

Examples and Analogies

The Electoral Commission’s school: in Angara v. Electoral Commission (1936), the founding judicial-review case, the writ appeared in its classic posture — an original action “for the issuance of a writ of prohibition to restrain and prohibit the Electoral Commission … from taking further cognizance of the protest” against Angara’s seat; the Court claimed the power of review and then denied the writ on the merits. (LawPhil — Angara v. Electoral Commission)
Verified procedural data:
Grounds and relief (Sec. 2): proceedings without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, where no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists; judgment commanding the respondent to desist, plus incidental reliefs — and, wider than certiorari’s section, reaching respondents “whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions” (LawPhil — 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Period and venue (Sec. 4): filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution; in the Regional Trial Court for acts of trial courts, boards, officers, or persons, the Court of Appeals for quasi-judicial agencies (exclusively), or the COMELEC for election cases involving MTC/RTC acts (LawPhil — 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Incidents (Secs. 5–7): private respondents joined and bearing costs; comment within ten (10) days; TRO or preliminary injunction available, absent which “the petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case” (LawPhil — 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Usage Scenarios

1. Arresting an Intrusion on Judicial Independence

Estipona v. Lobrigo (G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017): “Challenged in this petition for certiorari and prohibition is the constitutionality of Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165,” the plea-bargaining provision — and the petition was GRANTED, the provision struck down as an intrusion on the Court’s rule-making authority. (LawPhil — Estipona v. Lobrigo)

2. Stopping Proceedings at the Top of the Political System

A displaced president filed “a petition for prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction … to enjoin the respondent Ombudsman from conducting any further proceedings” in Estrada v. Desierto (2001), the Court holding that the 1987 Constitution “has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine.” (LawPhil — Estrada v. Desierto)

3. Policing the Boundary of Quasi-Legislative Action

Ermita v. Delorino supplies the negative rule: a prohibition petition against Executive Order No. 486 (2006), a presidential tariff measure, could not proceed because the issuance was an exercise of quasi-legislative function. (LawPhil — Ermita v. Delorino)

Strategies

Plead the jurisdictional failure, not the wrong outcome: the writ issues for usurpation or grave abuse — never as a preview of an appeal. (LawPhil — Angara v. Electoral Commission, LawPhil — Ermita v. Delorino)
Move early, on time, and ask for interim relief honestly: arrest proceedings before judgment — annulment belongs to certiorari — within the sixty-day period and Section 4’s venues; unless a TRO or injunction issues, the filing does not interrupt the principal case. (LawPhil — 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Respect the quasi-legislative line: against issuances made in a quasi-legislative capacity, prohibition is the wrong vehicle. (LawPhil — Ermita v. Delorino)

Security and Safety Measures

Gravity as the brake: the writ demands grave abuse amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction — not mere error — keeping the extraordinary remedy from becoming a second appeal. (LawPhil — 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, LawPhil — Ermita v. Delorino)
The principal case goes on: absent injunctive relief the petition “shall not interrupt the course of the principal case.” (LawPhil — 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Adversarial discipline: private respondents are joined, bear the costs of defense, and comment within ten days. (LawPhil — 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Historical Context

The writ predates the Rules that now house it. Angara v. Electoral Commission (1936) — decided four years before the first Rules of Court — was itself an original prohibition action, tested against “sections 226 and 516 of the Code of Civil Procedure” and denied on the merits. (LawPhil — Angara v. Electoral Commission) The Rules of Court effective January 1, 1964 placed “CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS” together in a single Rule 65, the arrangement the 1997 Rules retained. (LawPhil — 1964 Rules of Court, LawPhil — 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

The writ’s register rose with the 1987 Charter: Article VIII, Section 1 made grave abuse of discretion a judicial question in every department, and prohibition became a vehicle of first resort in public-law contests — Estrada (2001), Ermita (2011), Estipona (2017). (LawPhil — 1987 Constitution, LawPhil — Estrada v. Desierto, LawPhil — Estipona v. Lobrigo)

Challenges and Controversies

Substitute for Appeal

Prohibition is forever tempted into ordinary appellate service — against interlocutory orders, or after an appeal period is lost. The Rule answers: the writ lies only where no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists. (LawPhil — 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

The Quasi-Legislative Boundary

Ermita denied the writ against a presidential tariff order because prohibition does not lie against quasi-legislative functions — a line hard to draw when an issuance mixes rule-making with adjudication. (LawPhil — Ermita v. Delorino)

Extraordinary Remedies in Ordinary Politics

Angara, Estrada, and Estipona place the writ at the constitutional summit — electoral contests, presidential succession, the separation of powers — so an “extraordinary” remedy has become the ordinary gateway to high-politics review. (LawPhil — Estrada v. Desierto, LawPhil — Estipona v. Lobrigo)