Gregorio Honasan II petitioner vs.
· Senator Honasan then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors
Of the Department of Justice
G.R.No. 159747 April 13,2004
Lessons Applicable: Rule on Interpretative Regulations (persons), Powers of the
Ombudsman (consti), concurrent jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the DOJ to
conduct preliminary investigation (consti)
Law Applicable: Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution, Art. 2 Civil Code
Facts:
· August 4, 2003: CIDG-PNP/P Director Edguardo Matillano filed an affidavit-
complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) which contains the following in
part:
o July 27, 2003: crime of coup d’ etat was committed by military personnel who
occupied Oakwood and Senator Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan, II
o On or about 11 p.m. June 4,2003: A meeting was held and presided by Senator
Honasan in a house located in San Juan, Metro Manila
o Early morning of July 27, 2003: Capt. Gerardo Gambala, in behalf of the military
rebels occupying Oakwood, made a public statement aired on national television,
stating their withdrawal of support to the chain of command of the AFP and the
Government of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Willing to risk their lives to
achieve the National Recovery Agenda (NRA) of Senator Honasan which they believe
is the only program that would solve the ills of society.
· Sworn statement of AFP Major Perfecto Ragil stated that:
o June 4, 2003 about 11 pm: Senator Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan arrived with
Capt. Turinga to hold the NRP meeting where they concluded the use of force,
violence and armed struggle to achieve the vision of NRP where a junta will be
constituted which will run the new government. They had a blood compact and
that he only participated due to the threat made by Senator Honasan when he said
“Kung kaya nating pumatay sa ating mga kalaban, kaya din nating pumatay sa
mga kasamahang magtataksil.”
o July 27, 2003: He saw on TV that Lieutenant Antonio Trillanes, Captain Gerardo
Gambala, Captain Alejano and some others who were present during the NRP
meeting he attended, having a press conference about their occupation of the
Oakwood Hotel. He saw that the letter "I" on the arm bands and the banner is the
same letter "I" in the banner is the same as their blood compact wound.
· August 27, 2003: Senator Honasan appeared with counsel at the DOJ to file
a a Motion for Clarification questioning DOJ's jurisdiction over the case since the
imputed acts were committed in relation to his public office by a group of public
officials with Salary Grade 31 which should be handled by the Office of the
Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan
Rules of Court against the DOJ Panel and its members, CIDG-PNP-P/Director
Eduardo Matillano and Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo, attributing grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the DOJ Panel in issuing the aforequoted Order of
September 10, 2003 directing him to file his respective counter-affidavits and
controverting evidence on the ground that the DOJ has no jurisdiction to conduct
the preliminary investigation
Issues:
Whether in regards to Ombudsman-DOJ Circular no. 95-001, the office of the
Ombudsman should deputize the prosecutors of the DOJ to conduct the
preliminary investigation.
Whether the Ombudsman-DOJ Joint Circular no. 95-001 is ineffective on the
ground that it was not published
Whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation
because the petitioner is a public officer with salary grade 31 (Grade 27 or Higher)
thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandigan Bayan.
Held: Wherefore, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit
1. No.
Ombudsman cases involving criminal offenses may be subdivided into two classes,
to wit: (1) those cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, and (2) those falling under the
jurisdiction of the regular courts. The difference between the two, aside from the
category of the courts wherein they are filed, is on the authority to investigate as
distinguished from the authority to prosecute
The power to investigate or conduct a preliminary investigation on any
Ombudsman case may be exercised by an investigator or prosecutor of the Office
of the Ombudsman, or by any Provincial or City Prosecutor or their assistance,
either in their regular capacities or as deputized Ombudsman prosecutors.
circular supports the view of the respondent Ombudsman that it is just an internal
agreement between the Ombudsman and the DOJ
The Constitution, The Ombudsman Act of 1989, Administrative order no. 8 of the
office of the Ombudsman. The prevailing jurisprudence and under the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure, All recognize and uphold the concurrent jurisdiction
of the Ombudsman and the DOJ to conduct preliminary investigation on charges
filed against public officers and employees.
The DOJ Panel need not be authorized nor deputized by the Ombudsman to
conduct the preliminary investigation for complaints filed with it because the
DOJ's authority to act as the principal law agency of the government and
investigate the commission of crimes under the Revised Penal Code is derived from
the Revised Administrative Code which had been held in the Natividad case13 as
not being contrary to the Constitution. Thus, there is not even a need to delegate
the conduct of the preliminary investigation to an agency which has the
jurisdiction to do so in the first place. However, the Ombudsman may assert its
primary jurisdiction at any stage of the investigation.

2. No.
· In the case of People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640 (1954). The only circulars
and regulations which prescribe a penalty for its violation should be published
before becoming effective.
· In the case of Taňada V. Tuvera, 146 Scra 453 (1986), The Honorable Court
rules that:
o Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is regulating
only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be
published. Neither is publication required of the so called letters of instructions
issued by the administrative superiors concerning the rules on guidelines to be
followed by their subordinates in performance of their duties.
OMB-DOJ Joint Circulars no. 95-001 is merely an internal circular between the
DOJ and the office of the Ombudsman, Outlining authority and responsibilities
among prosecutors of the DOJ and of the office of the Ombudsman in the conduct
of preliminary investigation. It does not regulate the conduct of persons or the
public, in general.

3. No. Whether or not the offense is within exclusive jurisdiction or not will not
resolve the present petition so as not to pre-empt the result of the investigation
conducted by the DOJ Panel.
Tawang Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. La Trinidad Water District
TAWANG MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE v. LA TRINIDAD WATER DISTRICT
G.R. No. 166471, March 22, 2011

FACTS:
Petitioner Tawang Multi-Purpose Cooperative (TMPC) was organized to provide
domestic water services in Brgy. Twang, La Trinidad, Benguet. Respondent La
Trinidad Water District (LTWD) is a government owned and controlled corporation,
a local water utility created under PD No. 198, authorized to supply water for
domestic, industrial and commercial purpose within municipality of La Trinidad,
Benguet.
October 9, 2000, TMPC filed with National Water Resources Board an application
for Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to operate and maintain a waterworks
system in Brgy. Tawang LTWD claimed that under Sec. 47 of PD No. 198, as
amended, its franchise is exclusive.
August 15, 2002, the NWRB held that LTWD’s franchise cannot be exclusive since
exclusive franchises are unconstitutional under Sec. 2, Art. XII.
October 1, 2004, upon appeal of LTWD to the RTC, the latter cancelled TMPC’s
CPC and held that Sec. 47 of PD No. 198 is valid; that the ultimate purpose of the
Constitution is for the State, through its authorized agencies or instrumentalities,
to be able to keep and maintain ultimate control and supervision over the operation
of public utilities. What is repugnant to the Constitution is a grant of franchise
exclusive in character so as to preclude the State itself from granting a franchise
to any other person or entity than the present grantee when public interest so
requires.
November 6, 2004, RTC denied the motion for reconsideration filed by TMPC.

ISSUE:
Whether RTC erred in holding that Sec. 47 of PD No. 198 is valid

HELD:
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner. Quando aliquid prohibetur ex
directo, prohibetur et per obliquum – Those that cannot be done directly cannot
be done indirectly. Under Sec. 2 and 11, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution, The
President, Congress, and Court cannot create indirectly franchises that are
exclusive in character by allowing the Board of Directors (BOD) of a water district
and Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) to create franchises that are
exclusive in character. Sec. 47 of PD no. 198 is in conflict with the above-
mentioned provision of the Constitution. And the rule is that in case of conflict
between the Constitution and a statute, the former prevails, because the
constitution is the basic law to which all other laws must conform to.