SC denies Gringo’s motion for reconsideration

The Supreme Court has found no strong reason to reverse its earlier ruling that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has jurisdiction to proceed with preliminary investigation of the coup d’etat charges filed against former senator Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan for his alleged involvement in the failed Oakwood mutiny in July last year.

In a three-page resolution, the Supreme Court dismissed Honasan’s motion for reconsideration seeking to cite the DOJ in contempt of court for continuing with the investigation.

Honasan, a former Army colonel, has argued that the Office of the Ombudsman, not the DOJ, should conduct the probe because he was a public official at the time when mutinous soldiers laid siege to the Oakwood Premier in Makati City on July 27 last year.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court merely recognized that Honasan’s motion for reconsideration was filed on time but still dismissed it for lack of merit.

The High Court said in its ruling last June 15 that Honasan filed his motion for reconsideration 30 days late, or only on June 8 instead of May 7 as required. Thus, the court’s decision dated April 13, 2004 already attained finality as of May 8 when it junked Honasan’s earlier petition questioning the DOJ’s jurisdiction over his case.

The Supreme Court merely set aside this portion of its June 15 decision, saying the former senator was able to file his motion for reconsideration by registered mail on May 7.

"However, a study of the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration shows that the arguments raised were already considered in arriving at our decision sought to be reconsidered and we find no cogent reason to reverse our earlier findings that respondent DOJ panel has concurrent jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation on the charges of coup d’etat filed against petitioner," the Supreme Court said.

The High Court said it refrained from ruling on whether the charge against Honasan was committed in relation to his office so as not to preempt the DOJ investigation.

The Supreme Court noted it would be up to the DOJ panel to determine probable cause to warrant the filing of the information against Honasan and which court, considering the presence of the other respondents in the complaint.

The court also found to be "lacking in factual foundation" Honasan’s allegation of marked bias and prejudice against the DOJ citing the statements made by President Arroyo and her other top officials supposedly prejudging his guilt.

"The DOJ panel is composed of lawyers whose sworn duty is to investigate the commission and prosecution of criminal cases and who are expected to fulfill their assigned role in the administration of justice with fairness," the Supreme Court said.

"Whatever remarks made in connection with the charge do not itself prove that it would influence the minds and members of the panel on what their judgment would be after the whole evidence of the petitioner’s case shall have been examined and evaluated by them," it said.

The court held that allegation of bias was not enough without viable proof since it was not for the Supreme Court to assume in advance that the DOJ panel would fail to discharge its manifest duty in the conduct of the preliminary investigation.

"We likewise find unpersuasive (the) petitioner’s claim of alleged prejudicial acts committed by respondent DOJ panel in the initial stages of the conduct of the preliminary investigation," the Supreme Court said.

In its June 15 decision, the high tribunal asked the DOJ to give Honasan more time to submit his counter-affidavit.

Acting Justice Secretary Merceditas Gutierrez said the former lawmaker would be given 15 days to answer the charges against him after the entry of judgment has been made.

The Supreme Court said it was satisfied with the DOJ’s explanation that the charges against Honasan were filed as early as August of 2003 but the preliminary investigation had been pending because of question on jurisdiction.

The court pointed out that the DOJ was also considering the former senator’s right to a speedy disposition of his case. It added the DOJ’s "intention" is to give Honasan "all the opportunity to controvert the accusation against him and to adduce evidence in his behalf."

Honasan had refused to submit himself to the DOJ’s preliminary probe, citing his pending petition before the Supreme Court as reason.

He also cried foul over the zealousness of the DOJ in prosecuting him, saying it amounted to "persecution."

Honasan said the same thing was done by government officials in implicating him with the failed mutiny. He alleged that even before the investigation was conducted, he was already tagged as the brains behind the military uprising.

Honasan lamented that this happened even as he helped convince the rebellious soldiers not to resort to violence.

Whether the case would be filed in court will be known after the preliminary investigation of the case, the DOJ panel said.

Honasan was alleged to have led meetings with the leaders of the military officers and enlisted personnel who staged the mutiny.

The witnesses against Honasan said the senator instigated the toppling of the Arroyo government and even entered into a "blood compact" with the soldiers.

The rebellious soldiers also distributed pamphlets of Honasan’s National Recovery Program during the mutiny which contained supposed solutions to corruption and abuses in government.