Daily Tribune
THE Court of Appeals has dismissed a mandamus petition filed by members of the Yanson family, affirming that the Secretary of Justice cannot be legally compelled to act within a set timeframe on matters under review — citing the discretionary nature of the position and the principle of separation of powers.
Photo from PNA
The Court of Appeals has dismissed a petition for mandamus filed by several members of the Yanson family, ruling that the Secretary of Justice cannot be compelled to act within a specific timeframe on petitions for review, as doing so would amount to judicial interference.
In a decision dated 9 June 2025, the appellate court emphasized that there is no legally mandated period for the Secretary of Justice to resolve matters under review, reinforcing the discretionary nature of the position’s authority.
“To compel the Secretary of Justice to take action would, in our view, amount to judicial interference with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion and would violate the well-established principle of separation of powers,” the Court stated in its ruling.
The petition was filed by Roy Yanson, Emily Yanson, Ma. Lourdes Celina Lopez, Ricardo Yanson Jr., Jerina Louise Ramos, Jerica Leanne Ramos, Ma. Judy Alcala, and Anna Isabella Galvez — members of the embattled Yanson clan embroiled in a protracted legal battle over the control of the family’s multibillion-peso transport empire.
Leo Rey Yanson, backed by their mother Olivia Yanson, is currently recognized as the legitimate president of Vallacar Transit Inc. (VTI).
The petitioners sought to compel the Department of Justice to resolve pending motions and appeals related to unresolved legal matters, but the Court ruled that such actions fall under the “sound discretion” of the Secretary and cannot be subjected to a mandatory timeline.
But the CA has ruled that the secretary of justice cannot be compelled to resolve within a specific period the petitions for review on rulings or resolutions issued by Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors.
“In a word, the consistent omission of a mandatory timeframe within which the Secretary of Justice must act on matters for his or her review affirms and reinforces the discretionary nature of this function.
“To compel the Secretary of Justice to take action would, in our view, amount to judicial interference with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion and would violate the well-established principle of separation of powers.”
As of press time, the petitioners have not disclosed whether they intend to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.
