Interlocutory Orders and Rule 65 Before focusing on the merits of this case, the Court sees fit to address a procedural concern with respect to G.R. No. 168253. Private respondent has persistently thrust upon us the proposition that the April 25, 2005 order subject of the petition in G.R. No. 168253, being, as it is, an interlocutory order rendered by a division of the Comelec, cannot be assailed by means of a special civil action for certiorari, as only final orders of the Comelec en banc can be brought to the Supreme Court by that mode. We disagree. Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which governs petitions for certiorari, provides that: When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. xxx xxx xxx Under the foregoing provision, one may resort to a special civil action for certiorari under three conditions: (1) the petition must be directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) the tribunal, board or officer has 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 plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Other than these three, the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari has no preset boundaries.Any act by an officer or entity exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, if done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, may be assailed by means of a special civil action for certiorari when no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is available. In other words, no judicial or quasi-judicial act or order is excluded a priori from the ambit of the Supreme Court’s power to correct through the writ of certiorari. It is therefore incorrect to say that interlocutory orders issued by a division of the Comelec, or by any judicial or quasi-judicial body for that matter, are beyond the reach of this Court. That the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari assailing interlocutory orders rendered by a Comelec division from which no recourse to the Comelec en banc could be had was, in fact, acknowledged in Kho v. Commission on Elections.12 In that case, Kho, an election protestant, filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court questioning the Comelec First Division’s interlocutory orders relating to the admission of his opponent’s belatedly filed answer. One of the issues in Kho was whether the controversial orders should have first been referred to the Comelec en banc. Citing Section 5(c), Rule 3 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure which states that: