Decision 6 G.R. No. 221139 of the actions of the trial court. But the Court of Appeals also has original jurisdiction over most special civil actions. Unlike the trial courts, its writs can have a nationwide scope. It is competent to determine facts and, ideally, should act on constitutional issues that may not necessarily be novel unless there are factual questions to determine. This court, on the other hand, leads the judiciary by breaking new ground or further reiterating - in the light of new circumstances or in the light of some confusions of bench or bar - existing precedents. Rather than a court of first instance or as a repetition of the actions of the Court of Appeals, this court promulgates these doctrinal devices in order that it truly performs that role. 34 (Citation omitted) The doctrine of hierarchy of courts admits of exceptions in Aala: 35 However, the doctrine on hierarchy of courts is not an inflexible rule. In Spouses Chua v. Ang, this Court held that "[a] strict application of this rule may be excused when the reason behind the rule is not present in a case[.]" This Court has recognized that a direct invocation of its original jurisdiction may be warranted in exceptional cases as when there are compelling reasons clearly set forth in the petition, or when what is raised is a pure question of law. In a fairly recent case, we summarized other well-defined exceptions to the doctrine on hierarchy of courts. Immediate resort to this Court may be allowed when any of the following grounds are present: ( 1) when genuine issues of constitutionality are raised that must be addressed immediately; (2) when the case involves transcendental importance; (3) when the case is novel; (4) when the constitutional issues raised are better decided by this Court; (5) when time is of the essence; (6) when the subject of review involves acts of a constitutional organ; (7) when there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; (8) when the petition includes questions that may affect public welfare, public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice; (9) when the order complained of was a patent nullity; and (10) when the appeal was considered as an inappropriate remedy. 36 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted) It does not escape this Court's attention that an equally effective avenue for relief was available to petitioner through recourse to the Court of Appeals. This Court, however, takes cognizance of the Petition, in the interest of addressing the novel issue of whether the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act works to remove from courts of law jurisdiction over criminal cases involving indigenous peoples. It does not. 34 Id. at 329-330. 35 803 Phil. 36 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc]. 36 Id. at 57. J