6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly against Genuinos, among others, after criminal complaints for Malversation, as defined under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and Violation of Sections 3(e), (g), (h) and (i) of R.A. No. 3019 were filed against them by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), through its Director, Eugene Manalastas, with the DOJ on June 14, 2011, for the supposed diversion of funds for the film "Baler." This was followed by the filing of another complaint for Plunder under R.A. No. 7080, Malversation under Article 217 of the RPC and Violation of Section 3 of R.A. No. 3019, against the same petitioners, as well as members and incorporators of BIDA Production, Inc. Wildformat, Inc. and Pencil First, Inc., for allegedly siphoning off PAGCOR funds into the coffers of BIDA entities. Another complaint was thereafter filed against Efraim and Erwin was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of R.A. No. 3019 for allegedly releasing PAGCOR funds intended for the Philippine Sports Commission directly to the Philippine Amateur Swimming Association, Inc.[55] In a Letter[56] dated July 29, 2011 addressed to Chief State Counsel Ricardo Paras, the Genuinos, through counsel, requested that the HDO against them be lifted. This plea was however denied in a Letter[57] dated August 1, 2011 which prompted the institution of the present petition by the Genuinos. In a Resolution[58] dated April 21, 2015, the Court consolidated the said petition with G.R. Nos. 199034 and 199046. The Court, after going through the respective memoranda of the parties and their pleadings, sums up the issues for consideration as follows: I WHETHER THE COURT MAY EXERCISE ITS POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW; II WHETHER THE DOJ HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE DOJ CIRCULAR NO. 41; and III WHETHER THERE IS GROUND TO HOLD THE FORMER DOJ SECRETARY GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT. Ruling of the Court The Court may exercise its power of judicial review despite the filing of information for electoral sabotage against GMA. It is the respondents' contention that the present petitions should be dismissed for lack of a justiciable controversy. They argue that the instant petitions had been rendered moot and academic by (1) the expiration of the WLO No. 422 dated August 9, 2011, as amended by the Order dated September 6, 2011;[59] (2) the filing of an information for electoral sabotage against GMA,[60] and; (3) the lifting of the WLO No. 2011-573 dated November 14, 2011 against Miguel Arroyo and the subsequent deletion of his name from the BI watchlist after the COMELEC en banc dismissed the case for electoral sabotage against him.[61] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 8/70