5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly trial court has jurisdiction over the same in light of the laws governing jurisdiction.[11] As such, jurisdiction is neither a question of fact or of fact and law but a matter of law. For this reason, We have consistently held that a court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is a question of law,[12] and have, in fact, affirmed dismissals by the CA of appeals brought to them involving pure questions of law.[13] Considering that only questions of law was raised in this petition, direct resort to this Court is proper.[14] We cannot, therefore, give credence to the lower court’s contention that the appropriate remedy to annul and set aside the issuance subject of this case is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Certiorari, as a special civil action, is available only if: (1) it is directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) the tribunal, board, or officer acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[15] In this case, respondents did not act in any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity in issuing the assailed resolution. They were not called upon to adjudicate the rights of contending parties to exercise, in any manner, discretion of a judicial nature. Instead, their issuance of the challenged resolution was done in the exercise of their quasilegislative and administrative functions within the confines of the granting law. Hence, contrary to the lower court’s contention, certiorari is not the proper remedy in the instant case. As to whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter involved in this case, it is settled in law and jurisprudence that the RTC has jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute, presidential decree, executive order, or administrative regulation, as recognized in Section 2(a), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides: SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxxx (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide final judgments and orders of lower courts in: (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.[16] In view of the foregoing provision, the jurisdiction of regular courts involving the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation cannot be denied. We have had several occasions wherein We affirmed the power of the RTC to take cognizance of actions assailing a specific rule or set of rules promulgated by administrative bodies for the power of judicial review is vested by the Constitution not only in this Court but in all elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58558 6/8