**Honasan vs. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the DOJ et al.**
### Facts:
On August 4, 2003, respondent CIDG-PNP/P Director Eduardo Matillano filed an affidavit-complaint against Senator Gregorio Honasan II with the Department of Justice (DOJ). The complaint accused Honasan of committing a coup d’etat based on several pre-events and activities, primarily the meeting presided by Honasan on June 4, 2003, in San Juan, Metro Manila, and the actual mutiny on July 27, 2003, at Oakwood.
1. **June 4, 2003 Incident**:
– At around 9:00 p.m., Honasan and identified military personnel discussed the National Recovery Program (NRP) and strategies, including the use of force and violence, to implement the plan.
– A blood compact was performed during the meeting to symbolize commitment.
2. **July 27, 2003 Incident**:
– Early morning of July 27, 2003, military rebels led by Captain Gerardo Gambala publicly declared their coup attempt on national TV, citing Honasan’s NRP.
Major Perfecto Ragil’s affidavit detailed these discussions and his observations, which implicated Honasan in the coup attempt.
**Procedural History**:
1. DOJ Panel sent a subpoena to Honasan for preliminary investigation.
2. On August 27, 2003, Honasan filed a Motion for Clarification to question DOJ’s jurisdiction and sought suspension of proceedings.
3. DOJ Panel issued an Order on September 10, 2003, directing the continuation of the investigation despite Honasan’s jurisdictional challenge.
4. Honasan petitioned the Supreme Court via certiorari under Rule 65, claiming the DOJ Panel’s grave abuse of discretion.
**Submissions**:
– **Petitioner (Honasan)**: Contended the Office of the Ombudsman had exclusive jurisdiction due to the charges being related to his public office, as mandated by relevant statutes and constitutional provisions.
– **Respondent DOJ Panel**: Argued that DOJ had the statutory authority, independent of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, for preliminary investigations into penal law offenses.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments and reviewed memoranda regarding the matter.
### Issues:
1. Does the DOJ Panel have jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation over the charge of coup d’etat against Honasan?
2. Is Ombudsman-DOJ Circular No. 95-001 violative of the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989)?
3. Did the DOJ Panel commit grave abuse of discretion in deferring the resolution on Honasan’s motion to clarify jurisdiction while directing him to submit counter-affidavit?
### Court’s Decision:
**Jurisdiction of DOJ**:
The Supreme Court held that the DOJ Panel’s authority derived from the Administrative Code of the Philippines and Presidential Decree No. 1275. It delineated the concurrent jurisdiction between the DOJ and Ombudsman in investigating cases against public officials. The Court stated the Ombudsman did not have exclusive authority, allowing DOJ’s prosecutors to conduct preliminary investigations.
**Ombudsman-DOJ Circular**:
The Circular was deemed a valid internal administrative agreement between the offices and did not require publication since it had no penal provisions or mandatory rules affecting public conduct.
**Grave Abuse of Discretion**:
The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the DOJ Panel in its procedural handling, including the decision to defer jurisdictional resolution while continuing the investigation.
### Doctrine:
1. **Concurrent Jurisdiction**: Both the DOJ and Ombudsman can exercise preliminary investigation powers concurrently for crimes involving public officials unless the Ombudsman exercises its primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
2. **Internal Administrative Arrangements**: Policies like Ombudsman-DOJ Joint Circulars, which delineate investigative and prosecutorial duties, are valid as internal guidelines without needing publication.
### Class Notes:
1. **Concurrent Jurisdiction**: Recognized between DOJ and Ombudsman for preliminary investigations.
2. **Primary Jurisdiction**: Ombudsman can assume primary control over specific cases at any investigation stage.
3. **Procedural Fairness**: Proper procedural handling underlines justified deference to trial stages and due process concerns.
4. **Statutory Interpretations**: DOJ’s jurisdiction detailed in the Administrative Code and special laws that are administrative, not penal, need no publication for validity.
**Relevant Statutory Provisions**:
– 1987 Administrative Code, Chapter I, Title III, Book IV
– PD 1275 & amendments
– Ombudsman Act of 1989 (RA 6770)
– Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 112
### Historical Background:
The case occurred amidst a politically volatile period in the Philippines, marked by a series of military coup attempts against the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The Oakwood mutiny, a significant event in Philippine political history, was orchestrated by younger military officers rallying under the public figure of Senator Honasan, a known opposition leader. This incident reflected tensions within the armed forces and highlighted the complexities involved in addressing military dissent amidst political opposition.
Leave a Reply