provision.24The Court partially granted the petitionby declaring Section 36(f) and (g) of R.A. No. 9165unconstitutional, and permanently enjoined theconcerned agencies from implementing them. 25In another instance, consolidated petitions forprohibitions26questioning the constitutionality of thePriority Development Assistance Fund weredeliberated upon by this Court which ultimatelygranted the same.Clearly, prohibition has been found an appropriateremedy to challenge the constitutionality of variouslaws, rules, and regulations.There is also no question regarding the jurisdictionof the CA to hear and decide a petition forprohibition. By express provision of the law,particularly Section 9(1) of Batas Pambansa Bilang129,27the CA was granted "original jurisdiction toissue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliarywrits or I processes, whether or not in aid of itsappellate jurisdiction." This authority· the CA enjoysconcurrently with RTCs and this Court.In the same manner, the supposed violation of theprinciple of the ·. hierarchy of courts does not poseany hindrance to the full deliberation of the issues athand. It is well to remember that "the judicialhierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule. Itgenerally applies to cases involving warring factualallegations. For this reason, litigants are required to[refer] to the trial courts at the first instance todetermine the truth or falsity of these contendingallegations on the basis of the evidence of theparties. Cases which depend on disputed facts fordecision cannot be brought immediately beforeappellate courts as they are not triers of facts.Therefore, a strict application of the rule of hierarchyof courts is not necessary when the cases broughtbefore the appellate courts do not involve factualbut legal questions."28Moreover, the principle of hierarchy of courts maybe set aside for special and important reasons, suchas when dictated by public welfare and ' theadvancement of public policy, or demanded by thebroader interest of justice.29Thus, when based on
the good judgment of the court, the urgency andsignificance of the issues presented calls for itsintervention, it should not hesitate to exercise itsduty to resolve.The instant petition presents an exception to theprinciple as it basically raises a legal question onthe constitutionality of the mandatory discount andthe breadth of its rightful beneficiaries. Moreimportantly, the resolution of the issues will redoundto the benefit of the public as it will put to rest thequestions on the propriety of the granting ofdiscounts to senior citizens and PWDs amid thefervent insistence of affected establishments thatthe measure transgresses their property rights. TheCourt, therefore, finds it to the best interest ofjustice that the instant petition be resolved.