Honasan v. Matillano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An affidavit-complaint was filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) by respondent CIDG-PNP/P Director Eduardo Matillano, alleging that petitioner Senator Gregorio Honasan II committed the crime of coup d’etat. The complaint detailed a meeting presided over by Senator Honasan on June 4, 2003, where the National Recovery Program (NRP) was discussed, concluding that force and violence were necessary to achieve its goals. The affidavit further alleged that Senator Honasan presented a plan to overthrow the government through armed revolution and proposed a blood compact ritual. The complaint linked these events to the military rebellion that occupied Oakwood on July 27, 2003. Procedural History: Following the filing of the affidavit-complaint, the DOJ Panel of Investigating Prosecutors issued a subpoena to Senator Honasan for a preliminary investigation. Senator Honasan appeared and filed a Motion for Clarification, questioning the DOJ's jurisdiction and asserting that the Office of the Ombudsman, not the DOJ, had jurisdiction over cases involving public officials, and that the Sandiganbayan, not regular courts, would have cognizance if the case were filed. The DOJ Panel issued an order noting the motion and directing respondents to file their counter-affidavits, deferring the resolution of the jurisdiction issue. The Petition: Senator Honasan filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, attributing grave abuse of discretion to the DOJ Panel for issuing the September 10, 2003 order. He argued that the DOJ lacked jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation. The petition raised issues concerning the jurisdiction of the DOJ Panel, the validity of OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001, and whether the DOJ Panel committed grave abuse of discretion by deferring the resolution of the jurisdiction motion. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments and considered the parties' memoranda.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Department of Justice Panel of Investigators has jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary investigation over the charge of coup d'etat against petitioner. Whether Ombudsman-DOJ Circular No. 95-001 violates the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989. Whether the respondent DOJ Panel of Investigators committed grave abuse of discretion in deferring the resolution of the petitioner's motion to clarify jurisdiction.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the DOJ Panel to conduct preliminary investigation: The Court held that the DOJ has concurrent jurisdiction with the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigations on charges against public officers. The authority of the DOJ is derived from the Revised Administrative Code and P.D. 1275, which empower the DOJ to investigate the commission of crimes and prosecute offenders. While the Constitution grants the Ombudsman the power to investigate public officials, this power is not exclusive. Jurisprudence has consistently recognized the concurrent authority of the Ombudsman and other agencies, including the DOJ, to investigate offenses involving public officers. The fact that the petitioner is a public officer does not automatically divest the DOJ of its investigatory powers, especially when the offense is not exclusively cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. The Court clarified that if the case falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction and may take over at any stage. On the validity and effect of OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001: The Court found no merit in the contention that the OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 is invalid for lack of publication. The circular is an internal agreement between the DOJ and the Office of the Ombudsman outlining guidelines for their prosecutors. It does not contain penal provisions or prescribe mandatory acts or prohibitions under pain of penalty, nor does it regulate the conduct of the public. Therefore, publication is not required for its effectivity, citing People vs. Que Po Lay and Tanada vs. Tuvera. The circular merely operationalizes the concurrent jurisdiction recognized by law and jurisprudence. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion in deferring the resolution of the jurisdictional motion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The DOJ Panel noted the motion and stated it would be passed upon in the resolution of the case. This was done to afford respondents ample opportunity to controvert the evidence submitted. The Court reiterated that a preliminary investigation is primarily for the purpose of determining probable cause, and deferring the resolution of a jurisdictional issue until the final determination of the case is not an outright rejection of the motion and does not constitute grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has concurrent jurisdiction with the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigations on charges against public officers, including those for coup d'etat, unless the offense falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, in which case the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction and may take over the investigation at any stage. The OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 is an internal agreement and does not require publication as it does not prescribe penalties.