Case Digest (A.C. No. 9387) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In G.R. No. 159747, Honasan II v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors, decided April 13, 2004 under the 1987 Constitution, petitioner Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II challenged the authority of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Panel of Investigating Prosecutors—composed of Leo Dacera, Susan F. Dacanay, Edna A. Valenzuela, and Sebastian F. Caponong, Jr.—to conduct a preliminary investigation into charges of coup d’état filed by CIDG-PNP-P Director Eduardo Matillano on August 4, 2003 (I.S. No. 2003-1120), with Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo as a respondent. The complaint was anchored on the Oakwood mutiny of July 27, 2003 and an earlier meeting on June 4, 2003 in San Juan, Metro Manila, where Major Perfecto Ragil swore that Senator Honasan allegedly presided over a discussion endorsing an armed overthrow of the government under his National Recovery Program. Upon receipt of the complaint the DOJ Panel subpoenaed Honasan for a preliminary investigation set on August 27, 2003, whereupon h Case Digest (A.C. No. 9387) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Complaint
- On August 4, 2003, CIDG-PNP Director Eduardo Matillano filed an affidavit-complaint with the DOJ naming Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II and military officers for violation of Article 134-A (coup d’état) of the RPC.
- Key allegations:
- A meeting on June 4, 2003 in San Juan, Metro Manila presided by Honasan discussing his National Recovery Program (NRP), graft and corruption, and the need for armed overthrow.
- Blood-compact rites administered by Honasan to bind participants.
- Public proclamation on July 27, 2003 by rebel officers occupying Oakwood, withdrawing support from the chain of command.
- Preliminary Investigation Proceedings
- The DOJ Panel of Investigating Prosecutors issued a subpoena; Honasan appeared on August 27, 2003.
- Honasan filed a “Motion to Clarify Jurisdiction,” arguing that:
- The Ombudsman, not the DOJ, has jurisdiction to investigate public officials.
- Any subsequent criminal case belongs to the Sandiganbayan due to his Salary Grade 31 status.
- The DOJ Panel’s Order of September 10, 2003 directed parties to file counter-affidavits before resolving the jurisdictional motion.
- Petition for Certiorari
- Honasan filed a Rule 65 petition before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the DOJ Panel.
- Three main issues raised:
- Jurisdiction of DOJ Panel over coup d’état charges against a sitting Senator.
- Constitutionality and effectivity of Ombudsman-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001.
- Legality of deferring resolution of his jurisdictional motion.
Issues:
- Jurisdictional Authority
- Does the DOJ Panel have jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary investigation for coup d’état against Senator Honasan?
- Is the Ombudsman’s investigatory power over public officials exclusive or concurrent with other agencies?
- Legality of Joint Circular No. 95-001
- Does OMB-DOJ Circular 95-001 violate the Constitution or the Ombudsman Act (R.A. 6770)?
- Can the Ombudsman deputize DOJ prosecutors en masse, or must deputization be case-specific?
- Deferral of Motion to Clarify Jurisdiction
- Did the DOJ Panel gravely abuse its discretion by delaying resolution of Honasan’s jurisdictional motion under the guise of seeking additional evidence?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)