G.R. No. 147377 - Vera vs. Rigor

Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II (petitioner) filed a petition for certiorari on September 22, 2003, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction against various respondents.
The petition challenged the Department of Justice (DOJ) Panel of Investigating Prosecutors’ assumed jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary investigation on the charge of coup daetat against the petitioner.

Respondents filed their respective comments and petitioner submitted a reply, with an oral argument held on November 18, 2003.
The Court rendered a decision on April 13, 2004, dismissing the petition and upholding the concurrent jurisdiction of the respondent Panel in the conduct of the preliminary investigation.
Petitioner was notified of the decision on April 22, 2004, which provided him until May 7, 2004, to file a motion for reconsideration.

On April 23, 2004, the respondent issued an order granting a final extension until May 7, 2004 for the filing of a counter-affidavit and submission of evidence.
The assailed order was based on the Court’s decision upholding the panel's jurisdiction, despite the Court’s earlier resolution that maintained the status quo pending the filing of the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner argued that the respondent’s issuance of the order was in direct contravention of the November 18, 2003, Court Resolution which mandated that the DOJ (with assurance by a designated State Prosecutor) maintain the status quo before the petitioner’s petition was filed.
He contended that since the ruling of April 13, 2004 had not become final (given the remaining period until May 7, 2004 for filing motion for reconsideration), the respondent’s order was premature and subversive of his right to due process.
The petitioner asserted that compelling him to submit a counter-affidavit would disrupt the status quo and effectively railroad the preliminary investigation and possible detention against him.

The petitioner maintained that he still had a reglementary period to file his motion for reconsideration, hence the decision was not yet final or executory.
However, verification later revealed that the petitioner actually filed his motion for reconsideration on June 8, 2004, which was thirty days beyond the allowed period, thus finalizing the earlier decision as of May 8, 2004.

Whether the issuance of the assailed order by the respondent constituted contempt of court by:

Violating the prior agreement (as stated in the November 18, 2003, Court Resolution) to maintain the status quo pending the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Pre-empting the petitioner’s right to due process by forcing an early submission of his counter-affidavit while the Court’s decision had not been made final.

Whether such a procedural act (ordering the submission of a counter-affidavit) is intrinsically contemptuous or is a legitimate exercise of the respondent’s authority to conduct a preliminary investigation.