04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly depth of consultations and disclosure with respect to these processes should, of course, also be different considering their inherently varied natures. This confusion, I believe, renders the validity of the ponencia's discussions about the violation of the right to information and the government's duty of disclosure highly doubtful. Conclusion The foregoing reasons negate the existence of grave abuse of discretion that justifies the grant of a writ of prohibition. I therefore vote to DISMISS the consolidated petitions. [1] Respondents' Compliance dated August 7, 2008. [2] G.R. 171396, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 161. [3] Citing Batangas v. Romulo, 429 SCRA 736 (2004). [4] Citing Lacson v. Perez, 357 SCRA 756 (2001). [5] Citing Province of Batangas, supra note 3. [6] Citing Albana v. Comelec, 435 SCRA 98 (2004); Acop v. Guingona, 383 SCRA 577 (2002); Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, 421 SCRA 656 (2004). [7] Ponencia, p. 32. [8] Supra note 2, p. 214 [9] The cause of action in the present petition filed by the City of Iligan in G.R. No. 183893. [10] See: Delumen v. Republic, 94 Phil. 287 (1954); Allied Broadcasting Center, Inc. v. Republic, G.R. No. 91500, October 18, 1990, 190 SCRA 782; Mangahas v. Hon. Judge Paredes, G.R. No. 157866¸ February 14, 2007, 515 SCRA 709. [11] CONSTITUTION, Article VIII, Section 4(2). [12] The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, A Commentary (2003 ed.), p. 938. [13] Lis mota means the cause of the suit or action, 4 Campb.; Moldex Realty, Inc. v. HLURB, G.R. No. 149719, June 21, 200, 525 SCRA 198. [14] Respondents' Compliance dated September 1, 2008 citing the Executive Secretary's Memorandum dated August 28, 2008. [15] Respondents' Manifestation dated September 4, 2008 citing the Executive elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/47263 133/203