Case Summary (G.R. No. 159747)
Petitioner’s Allegations and Procedural History
• August 4, 2003: Director Matillano filed an affidavit-complaint charging Honasan and others with coup d’état (Art. 134-A, Rev. Penal Code). The sworn statements describe a June 4, 2003 meeting in San Juan, Metro Manila, presided over by Honasan, where armed struggle was endorsed and a blood-compact ritual observed.
• Oakwood occupation on July 27, 2003 further evidenced alleged conspiracy.
• DOJ Panel issued a subpoena; on August 27, Honasan appeared and moved to clarify that jurisdiction lay exclusively with the Office of the Ombudsman and, if charged, with the Sandiganbayan.
• September 10, 2003: DOJ Panel deferred resolution of the jurisdictional motion and directed the filing of counter-affidavits.
• Petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
Key Dates
• June 4, 2003: Meeting in San Juan, Metro Manila.
• July 27, 2003: Oakwood Hotel occupation.
• August 4, 2003: Affidavit-complaint filed with DOJ.
• August 27, 2003: Honasan’s appearance and Motion to Clarify Jurisdiction.
• September 10, 2003: DOJ Panel Order deferring the motion.
• April 13, 2004: Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 13 – Ombudsman’s power to investigate acts or omissions of public officials.
• Revised Administrative Code (1987), Book IV, Title III, Chap. I – DOJ’s mandate to investigate crimes.
• P.D. No. 1275 (as amended by P.D. 1513) – Establishment of National Prosecution Service under DOJ.
• P.D. No. 1606 (as amended by R.A. Nos. 7975, 8249) – Exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over certain offenses by public officers.
• R.A. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) – Grants the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan and concurrent investigatory authority over public officers.
• OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 – Guidelines for coordination between DOJ and Ombudsman in preliminary investigations.
• Rule 112, Secs. 2 and 4, Rules of Court – Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations and procedural requirements.
Issues Presented
- Whether the DOJ Panel has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation for coup d’état against Senator Honasan.
- Whether OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 unlawfully infringes on the Ombudsman’s exclusive or primary investigatory authority.
- Whether the DOJ Panel gravely abused its discretion by deferring resolution of the petitioner’s jurisdictional motion.
Parties’ Contentions
Petitioner:
- Coup d’état alleged against a public official in relation to office falls under the Sandiganbayan’s exclusive jurisdiction and the Ombudsman’s primary investigatory authority.
- OMB-DOJ Circular is ultra vires, lacking publication and legislative basis.
- DOJ Panel’s deferral of the jurisdictional question compounds the jurisdictional defect.
DOJ Panel:
- DOJ’s investigatory authority derives from the Administrative Code and P.D. 1275.
- Coup d’état, as charged, bears no sufficient nexus to legislative functions; petitioner’s acts are outside his official duties.
- Challenge to Circular is misplaced; jurisdiction is statutory, not circular-based.
- Motion to clarify jurisdiction resembles a prohibited motion to dismiss and need not be acted upon until determination of probable cause.
Ombudsman (intervenor):
- DOJ and Ombudsman have concurrent authority; Circular merely implements existing law.
- Joint Circular is an internal administrative arrangement, not requiring publication.
- Deputization of DOJ prosecutors under Sec. 31, R.A. 6770 is valid without case-by-case writ.
Supreme Court Analysis and Ruling
Constitutional and Statutory Basis of Jurisdiction
- The 1987 Constitution does not vest exclusive investigatory authority in the Ombudsman. Art. XI, Sec. 13 grants powers, but Paragraph 8 contemplates rules “as may be provided by law.”
- R.A. 6770 § 15(1) confers primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan and concurrent authority with other agencies (e.g., DOJ) to investigate public officials.
- Jurisprudence (Cojuangco Jr. v. PCGG; Deloso v. Domingo; Sanchez v. Demetriou; Natividad v. Felix) uniformly holds that the Ombudsman’s investigative power is concurrent, not exclusive.
DOJ’s Prosecution Mandate
- The Administrative Code (Book IV, Title III, Chap. I, Secs. 1 and 3(2)) and P.D. 1275 establish DOJ as principal law agency, with statutory power to investigate and prosecute crimes.
- Those provisions remain valid under the 1987 Constitution, supporting DOJ’s jurisdiction over any crime, including coup
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 159747)
Facts
- August 4, 2003: CIDG-PNP-P Director Eduardo Matillano filed an affidavit-complaint with DOJ accusing Senator Honasan of masterminding a coup d’état.
- Allegations: military personnel occupied Oakwood Hotel on July 27, 2003 pursuant to Honasan’s National Recovery Program (NRP).
- Sworn statement of AFP Major Perfecto Ragil recounts:
- March–May 2003: Distribution of NRP pamphlet by Capt. Gary Alejano.
- June 4, 2003 meeting in San Juan presided by Honasan:
• Discussion of graft, corruption, and NRP’s vision.
• Conclusion to pursue armed struggle.
• Blood-compact ritual forming the letter “I/H” imprint on NRP materials. - July 27, 2003: Oakwood occupation and public statement withdrawing military support from the chain of command.
- Complaint docketed as I.S. No. 2003-1120; DOJ Panel issued subpoena for preliminary investigation.
Procedural History
- August 27, 2003: Honasan appeared before DOJ Panel, moved to clarify DOJ’s lack of jurisdiction—asserting Ombudsman’s exclusive power under Constitution and RA 6770, and Sandiganbayan’s exclusive trial jurisdiction.
- DOJ Panel’s September 10, 2003 Order: Noted the motion but deferred its resolution; directed submission of counter-affidavits by September 23, 2003.
- Honasan filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari to annul the DOJ Panel’s Order as a grave abuse of discretion.
- Oral arguments and memoranda followed before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Does the DOJ Panel have jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation over the coup d’état charge against a sitting Senator?
- Is OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 unconstitutional or ultra vires as a source of DOJ’s authority?
- Did the DOJ Panel gravely abuse its discretion by deferring resolution of the jurisdictional motion?
Petitioner’s Contentions
- Only the Ombudsman may investigate public officials; the DOJ lacks jurisdiction over a Senator’s alleged coup act.
- OMB-DOJ Circular No. 95-001 is unconstitutional, ultra vires under RA 6770, and invalid for non-publication.
- As a Salary Grade 31 official, Honasan’s case falls under Sandiganbayan’s exclusive trial jurisdiction.
- The DOJ Panel improperly deferred resolutio