Thursday, February 20, 2014


Petitioner, Republic of Indonesia, represented by its Counsellor, Siti Partinah, entered into a Maintenance Agreement in August 1995 with respondent James Vinzon, sole proprietor of Vinzon Trade and Services.  The Maintenance Agreement stated that respondent shall, for a consideration, maintain specified equipment at the Embassy Main Building, Embassy Annex Building and the Wisma Duta, the official residence of petitioner Ambassador Soeratmin.  The equipment covered by the Maintenance Agreement are air conditioning units, generator sets, electrical facilities, water heaters, and water motor pumps. It is likewise stated therein that the agreement shall be effective for a period of four years and will renew itself automatically unless cancelled by either party by giving thirty days prior written notice from the date of expiry.
Petitioners claim that sometime prior to the date of expiration of the said agreement, or before August 1999, they informed respondent that the renewal of the agreement shall be at the discretion of the incoming Chief of Administration, Minister Counsellor Azhari Kasim, who was expected to arrive in February 2000.  When Minister Counsellor Kasim assumed the position of Chief of Administration in March 2000, he allegedly found respondent’s work and services unsatisfactory and not in compliance with the standards set in the Maintenance Agreement.  Hence, the Indonesian Embassy terminated the agreement in a letter dated August 31, 2000.[2] Petitioners claim, moreover, that they had earlier verbally informed respondent of their decision to terminate the agreement.
On the other hand, respondent claims that the aforesaid termination was arbitrary and unlawful.  Respondent cites various circumstances which purportedly negated petitioners’ alleged dissatisfaction over respondent’s services: (a) in July 2000, Minister Counsellor Kasim still requested respondent to assign to the embassy an additional full-time worker to assist one of his other workers; (b) in August 2000, Minister Counsellor Kasim asked respondent to donate a prize, which the latter did, on the occasion of the Indonesian Independence Day golf tournament; and (c) in a letter dated August 22, 2000, petitioner Ambassador Soeratmin thanked respondent for sponsoring a prize and expressed his hope that the cordial relations happily existing between them will continue to prosper and be strengthened in the coming years.
Hence, on December 15, 2000, respondent filed a complaint against petitioners docketed as Civil Case No. 18203 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 145. On February 20, 2001, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that the Republic of Indonesia, as a foreign sovereign State, has sovereign immunity from suit and cannot be sued as a party-defendant in the Philippines.  The said motion further alleged that Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim are diplomatic agents as defined under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and therefore enjoy diplomatic immunity.[4]  In turn, respondent filed on March 20, 2001, an Opposition to the said motion alleging that the Republic of Indonesia has expressly waived its immunity from suit.  He based this claim upon the following provision in the Maintenance Agreement:
"Any legal action arising out of this Maintenance Agreement shall be settled according to the laws of the Philippines and by the proper court of Makati City, Philippines."
Respondent’s Opposition likewise alleged that Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim can be sued and held liable in their private capacities for tortious acts done with malice and bad faith.
On May 17, 2001, the trial court denied herein petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss.  It likewise denied the Motion for Reconsideration subsequently filed.
The trial court’s denial of the Motion to Dismiss was brought up to the Court of Appeals by herein petitioners in a petition for certiorari and prohibition. Said petition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 66894, alleged that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the Republic of Indonesia gave its consent to be sued and voluntarily submitted itself to the laws and jurisdiction of Philippine courts and that petitioners Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim waived their immunity from suit.
On May 30, 2002, the Court of Appeals rendered its assailed decision denying the petition for lack of merit.  On August 16, 2002, it denied herein petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
            1.Is it correct to rule that the Republic of Indonesia waived its immunity from suit inentering into a maintenance contract with Vinzons Trade and Services? Explain.
            2.Is the suit for tort on the basis of the personal liability of Ambassador Soeratmin proper under the circumstances?

Reference: (THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, HIS EXCELLENCY AMBASSADOR SOERATMIN, and MINISTER COUNSELLOR AZHARI KASIM, petitioners, vs. JAMES VINZON, doing business under the name and style of VINZON TRADE AND SERVICES, respondent., G.R. No. 154705, 2003 June 26, En Banc)

A.The 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions commonly provide that:  “The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.”
            What is the effect of the addition in the 1987 Constitution of the following provision:  “Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government”?
            B. In applying the second power of the the Supreme Court, as above cited, how did it rule on the following:
a.     the Davide Impeachment case
b.      Osmeña v. Pendatun

a)Distinguish exhaustion of administrative remedies from exhaustion of judicial remedies.
b)In the cases assigned to you, how did the supreme court apply the concept of exhaustion of judicial remedies?
c)Cite at least five exceptions to the rule on administrative exhaustion.

PROBLEM NO. 4. Director WOW failed the lifestyle check conducted by the Ombudsman’s Office because WOW’s assets were grossly disproportionate to his salary and allowances.  Moreover, some assets were not included in his statement of Assets and Liabilities.  He was charged of graft and corrupt practices and pending the completion of investigations, he was suspended from office for six months.
A.   Aggrieved, WOW petitioned the Court of Appeals to annul the preventive suspension order on the ground that the Ombudsman could only recommend but not impose the suspension.  Moreover, according to WOW, the suspension was imposed without any notice or hearing, in violation of due process. Is the petitioner’s contention meritorious?  Discuss briefly.        

B.   For his part, the Ombudsman moved to dismiss WOW’s petition.  According to the Ombudsman the evidence of guilt of WOW is strong, and petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies.  WOW admitted he filed no motion for reconsideration, but only because the order suspending him was immediately executory. Should the motion to dismiss be granted or not? Discuss briefly.                                                                                    

PROBLEM NO. 5. The petitioner Solano Laganapan was appointed chief of police of the municipality of Kalayaan, Laguna on 4 January 1960, with a compensation of P660.00 per annum, by the respondent Mayor Asedillo. On 1 July 1960, his salary was increased to P720.00 per annum, and he was extended an appointment which was approved as provisional under Sec. 24(c) of Republic Act No. 2260 by the Commissioner of Civil Service.
On 1 April 1962, the petitioner was given another increase in salary and a corresponding appointment was made which the Commissioner of Civil Service "approved under Sec. 24(c) of Republic Act No. 2260, to continue until replaced by an eligible but not beyond thirty (30) days from receipt of certification of eligibles by the Provincial Treasurer of Laguna." 
Then, on 1 July 1963, 1 July 1964, and 1 July 1965, he was again given salary increases, and new appointments were extended to him, which appointments were also approved under Section 24(c) of Republic Act No. 2260 by the Commissioner ofCivil Service. 
However, on 16 February 1967, the petitioner was summarily dismissed from his position by respondent Mayor Elpidio Asedillo, on the ground that his appointment was provisional and that he has no civil service eligibility. The petitioner was told to surrender his firearm and other office equipment to the Municipal Treasurer of Kalayaan, Laguna 4 who was also informed of petitioner's dismissal on the same day.  Respondent Epifanio Ragotero was appointed acting chief of police of Kalayaan, Laguna on the same day, in place of the petitioner. 

Subsequently, or on 21 February 1967, the Municipal Council of Kalayaan, Laguna abolished the appropriation for the salary of the chief of police of Kalayaan, Laguna.  In view thereof, the petitioner complained to the Police Commission which advised him to file an injunction suit against Mayor Asedillo. 
Hence, on 16 March 1967, the petitioner filed a petition for mandamus, quo warranto with preliminary mandatory injunction against respondents Mayor Elpidio Asedillo, the Municipality of Kalayaan, Laguna, and Epifanio Ragotero, before the Court of First Instance of Laguna, docketed therein as Civil Case No. SC-719, seeking his reinstatement to the position of chief of police of Kalayaan, Laguna, with back salaries and damages.
In answer, respondents Mayor Elpidio Asedillo and Epifanio Ragotero claimed that the appointment of the petitioner, being merely temporary in character, and the petitioner having no civil service eligibility, his services could be terminated with or without cause, at the pleasure of the appoint power; and that the petitioner failed to exhaust all administrative remedies.
The respondent Municipality of Kalayaan, Laguna, for its part, alleged that the petitioner has no cause of action against it; and that, if the acts of the respondent mayor are patently irregular, the said mayor should be held solely liable therefor. 
After due hearing, judgment was rendered, as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment
(a) Declaring the summary dismissal of the petitioner on February 16,1967, illegal;
(b) Ordering the respondent Mayor Elpidio Asedillo to forthwith recall his designation of respondent Epifanio Ragotero as Acting Chief of Police of Kalayaan;
(c)  Ordering the respondent Mayor Elpidio Asedillo and the respondent Municipality of Kalayaan to forthwith reinstate the petitioner to his former position of Chief of Police of Kalayaan, Laguna, restore the appropriation for his salary and pay him his back salaries from February 16, 1967, until reinstated; and
(d) Ordering the respondent Mayor and respondent Municipality to give the petitioner a period of not less than thirty days from the date this decision becomes final within which to file his application for Civil Service eligibility under Sec. 9 of Republic Act No. 4864.
Without pronouncement as to costs.

From this judgment, the respondents appealed directly to this Court, claiming that the lower court erred: (1) in holding that petitioner need not exhaust administrative remedies before bringing the action for quo warranto and mandamus in court, as the action prescribes in one year and an administrative appeal does not interrupt the running of the period; (2) in holding that the summary dismissal of the petitioner-appellee was illegal; (3) in ordering the respondents-appellants Mayor and Municipality to give the petitioner a period of not less than thirty (30) days from the date the decision becomes final within which to file his application for civil service eligibility under Sec. 9 of Republic Act No. 4864; and
1. In the case at bar, is the rule on exhaustion of admistrative remedies applicable?
2.Was the summary dismissal of the Chief of Police valid?
       3.Is the municipality correctin its contention that it is only the mayor who is personally liable for damages if there be any?
 (Reference.G.R. No. L-28353     September 30, 1987SOLANO LAGANAPAN vs. ELPIDIO ASEDILLO)

PROBLEM NO. 6.In the local congressional elections held on May 11, 1987, Pineda of the LDP (Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino) and Dr. Emigdio of the NP (Natinalista Party) were rival candidates for the congressman position in Pampanga.On May 19, 1987, Pineda was proclaimed winner by the COMELEC.In due time, Emigdio filed an election protest in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.
            The HRET handed a decision that the winner is Emigdio, thus unseating Penide.The HRET was composed of Justice Herrera (as chair), with members Justice Cortes and Puno.One of the members of the HRET was Congressman Camasura (LDP) who revealed to Cong. Jose Cojuangco that he voted for Emigdio consistent with truth, justice and respect.
            The LDP party went into a flurry of plotting appropriate moves to neutralize the pro-Emigdio majority of the Tribunal.
            On the eve of the proclamation of the Emigdio decision, Cong. Cojuangco expelled Cong. Camasura and Cong. Bautista from the LDP for having allegedly ehlped organize another political party, an act which is considered as a complete betrayal to the cause and objectives of the LDP.The HRET thru a letter addressed to the chair, decided to to withdraw the nomination of Cong. Camasura and rescind his membership to the Tribunal.The tribunal then issued Resolution No. 91-008 cancelling the promulgation of the decision in the HRET for the reason that without Cong. Camasura’s vote, the decision lack the concurrence of five members as required by its rules, and therefore cnnot be validly promulgated.
  1. Is it within the power of the Supreme Court to review and annul the action of the House of Representatives (change the party’s representation in the HRET) to thwart the promulgation of its decision in the Emigdio v. Pineda case?
  2. Is the Resolution of the House of Representative removing Cong. Camasura from the HRET violative of the independence of the Electoral Tribunal?  

            Manolo is an owner of a hectare rice land in Olingan, Dipolog City.The Department of Agrarian reform worte him a letter that his riceland is subject to agrarian reform pursuant to PD 27.An assessment was made and his land was valued at 3,000 per hectare by the DAR. Notices were sent him, but he ignored the same.
            Disgruntled by the low pricing of the DAR, Manolo filed a petition for the correct valuation of his land before the Special Agrarian Court-RTC in Dipolog City.
            DAR files a motion to dismiss contending that the petition of Manolo failed to exhaust administrative remedies.It argues that Manolo should have gone first with the DARAB to question the valuation, or that it should have first questioned the valuation of the Assessment Committee of the DAR office.
            As RTC judge would you dismiss the petition of Manolo? Explain your answer.

            Jose Sy is an incumbent member of the Sangguniang Panlunsod of Dapitan City. His salary grade is 25. A case for graft and corruption was filed against him before the Sandiganbayan.He files a motion to dismiss citing that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction only for those officials receiving salary grade 27 and above.
            Would you dismiss his case on the ground that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over him? Reason out your answer.

            Judge Mabutas of RTC Cagayan de Oro City is implicated as an accessory for rape in an Information recently filed. The case was raffled in RTC Br. 5 presided by Judge Maluho, of the same judicial district.
            Judge Mabutas filed a motion that he should be dropped from the complaint considering that the RTC has no jurisdiction over him and that his case should be forwarded to the Office of the Court Administrator which has exclusive jurisdiction over him.
            Judge Maluho gave due course to his motion, and forwarded his case to the Office of the Court Administrator, reasoning out further that he has no jurisdiction over an RTC judge who has the same rank as him.
            Is Judge Maluho correct? Reason out your answer.

            An anonymous letter was received by the Ombudsman.Said letter alleges that a certain Maria Dy was raped by the Mayor of Salug.The Ombudsman directed the NBI, Dipolog City to conduct an investigation and to submit a report within 10 days. The NBI confirmed the report. The Ombudsman directed the Provincial Prosecutor of Zambo. Norte to conduct the preliminary investigation.
            After conducting the preliminary investigation, the Prosecutor arrrived at the finding that the Mayor should only be charged with Acts of Lasciviousness.The Resolution of the Prosecutor was overruled by the Ombudsman and the Prosecutor was directed to file an Information for rape against Mayor Tee of Salug.
            The Ombudsman then issued an Order suspending the Mayor for 6 months.
            On the other hand, the Prosecutor refused to file the Information for rape, as it runs contrary to his conscience, and far from truth and justice.
            The Ombudsman cited the Prosecutor for contempt and after hearing thereof, the latter was also suspended for 6 months.
            The Ombudsman then filed the Information for rape against the mayor before the Sandiganbayan.
            QUESTIONS: 1.The Prosecutor questioned the validity of his suspension for six months, alleging that the Ombudsman has no power to do such. He filed a certiorari petition before the SC questioning the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, alleging that the Ombudsman simply possesses concurrent jurisdiction with respect to prosecutory powers. If ever, it is the Secretary of Justice who has the power to discipline him. He also questioned the length of suspension alleging that it should only be 90 days, and not six months.
            2.The Mayor also questioned the power of the Ombudsman to suspend him. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over his case for the reason that his salary scale is Grade 26, as certified by the Treasurer of Salug.
            Rule on the contentions of the Prosecutor and the Mayor.

            What do you mean by the Regalian Doctrine, and how was such doctrine applied in the case of Chavez v. PEA and AMARI?

            Mr. & Mrs. Cruz are residents of Turno, Dipolog City, employed as nurses at the North Maternity Hospital. They bought in 1996 six hectares of riceland from Martin Dano.The land is not yet registered under the Torrens system. Martin inherited said land from his predecessors-in-interest.
            In 1998, the Cruz family resettled in Canada after having obtained a working visa. In 2003, they took an oath of allegiance and became Canadian citizens.
            In  2004 they went on vacation in Turno, Philippines, one purpose of which is to register their ownership of the riceland, which they bought beforehand from Martin.They paid the taxes, capital gains tax, and other fees.
            The Register of Deeds of Dipolog City refused to issue the Certificate of Title in the name of the Cruz spouses alleging that they are foreigners and hence are not qualified to own land in the Philippines.
            Question: Is the contention of the Register of Deeds correct? Explain.

            The Register of Deeds of Dipolog City refused to accept for record the Deed Of Donation executed in due form on Jan. 22, 1953 by Jesus Bastasa, a Filipino citizen conveying a parcel of residential land in Olingan, Dipolog City in favor of a religious organization, THE MORMONS, all of American nationality. John Hobbes duly accepted the donation, founder and deacon of the Mormons.The Mormons alleged that the refusal of the Register of Deeds to annotate said donation is a violation of the freedom of religious clause in the 1987 constitution.
            QUESTIONS: 1. Is the refusal of the Register of Deeds valid? Explain.

            The 2004 budget consists of 200 billion pesos. Automatically appropriated for debt servicing is 102 billion, while the budget for education is only 27 million and 30 million for the Judiciary.The automatic debt payment approriation is pursuant to P.D. No. 1177 and 1667, all authored by then President Marcos.
            Juan de la Cruz filed a petition to declare said P.D. unconstitutional, and invoked the constitutional provision that the “state shall give priority to education, science and technology” (Sec. 17, Art. II, 1987 Const.)  and that the “state shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best talents thru adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment” (Art. Xiv, Sec. 5(5) 1987 Const.).
            Rule on the contention of Juan de la Cruz.

PROBLEM 15. As a result of the national elections, the Senate is composed of the following:             LDP….15 senators; NPC….5 senators; LAKAS-NUCD….3 senators; and LP-PDP- LABAN…1 senator.
QUESTIONS:    1. On the basis of proportional representation, state the no. of senators per party which should  compose the House of Senate Electoral Tribunal and the Commission on Appointment.
                                    2.A compromise was made in a Congressional meeting in the Senate that the composition of the Commission on Appointment should be 8 from LDP, 2 from NPC, and  2 from LP-PDP.Is the compromise valid?
                                    3.In case a senator questions the vaidity of the proportional representation, is the Supreme Court empowered to review the compromise agreement inside Senate?

            The Pavilion Hotel, owned by the City Government of Dapitan was heavily indebted to GSIS.Due to its inability to pay its monetary obligations; the same was foreclosed and was sold at public auction. In the first bidding, at a minimum-bidding price of 100 million, no bidder qualified. A second bidding was conducted, with two bidders qualifying: Varquez Corporation (a filipino corporation) and Breur Landholdings Inc. (a German owned corporation).
            The Breur Landholdings won the bid, by a margin of 2.50 pesos/share.
            Varquez filed a suit, praying that it be allowed to “equal” the margin bid, and that the Pavilion Hotel be awarded to it, after having itself declared the winner of the bid. Varquez corporation invoked the constitutional provision that “ in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the state shall give preference to qualified Filipinos” (Sec. 10, 2nd par. of Art. XII, 1987 Const.)
            Breur maintains that: First, Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is merely a statement of principle and policy since it is not a self-executing provision and requires implementing legislation(s) . . . Thus, for the said provision to Operate, there must be existing laws "to lay down conditions under which business may be done."
Second, granting that this provision is self-executing, The Pavilion Hotel does not fall under the term national patrimony which only refers to lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna and all marine wealth in its territorial sea, and exclusive marine zone as cited in the first and second paragraphs of Sec. 2, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution.
QUESTIONS:1. Is the provision on Sec. 10, 2nd. Par. of Art. XII, merely directory as alleged by Breur? Explain.
2.Does the Pavilion Hotel form part of our national patrimony?
3.In the last analysis, would you declare Varquez Corporation as the rightful winner of the bidding and hence award the Pavilion hotel to it? Explain.

PROBLEM 17:What do you mean by the “doctrine of implied municipal liability”?
(Reference:  G.R. No. 72841       January 29, 1987PROVINCE OF CEBU vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.)

PROBLEM 18:Define the “general welfare clause” and state its limitations.

PROBLEM 19. Senator Gregorio Honasan was implicated in the Oakwood mutiny in the Sworn Statement of AFP Major Perfecto Ragil referred to by  PNP/P Director Matillano  which is quoted verbatim, to wit:
1.      That I am a member of the Communication –Electronics and Information Systems Services, Armed Forces of the Philippines with the rank of Major;
2.      That I met a certain Captain Gary Alejano of the Presidential Security Guard (PSG) during our Very Important Person (VIP) Protection Course sometime in last week of March 2003;
3.      That sometime in May 2003, Captain Alejano gave me a copy of the pamphlet of the National Recovery Program (NRP) and told me that:  “Kailangan ng Bansa ng taong  kagaya mo na walang bahid ng corruption kaya basahin mo ito (referring to NRP) pamphlet.  I took the pamphlet but never had the time to read it;
4.      That sometime in the afternoon of June 4, 2003, Captain Alejano invited me to join him in a meeting where the NRP would be discussed and that there would be a special guest;
5.      That Capt. Alejano and I arrived at the meeting at past 9 o’clock in the evening of June 4, 2003 in a house located somewhere in San Juan, Metro Manila;

6.      That upon arrival we were given a document consisting of about 3-4 pages containing discussion of issues and concerns within the framework of NRP and we were likewise served with dinner;
7.      That while we were still having dinner at about past 11 o’clock in the evening, Sen. Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan arrived together with another fellow who was later introduced as Capt. Turingan;
8.      That after Sen. Honasan had taken his dinner, the meeting proper started presided by Sen. Honasan;
9.      That Sen. Honasan discussed the NRP, the graft and corruption in the government including the military institution, the judiciary, the executive branch and the like;
10.       That the discussion concluded that we must use force, violence and armed struggle to achieve the vision of NRP.  At this point, I raised the argument that it is my belief that reforms will be achieved through the democratic processes and not thru force and violence and/or armed struggle.  Sen. Honasan countered that “we will never achieve reforms through the democratic processes because the people who are in power will not give up their positions as they have their vested interests to protect.”  After a few more exchanges of views, Sen. Honasan appeared irritated and asked me directly three (3) times:  “In ka ba o out?”  I then asked whether all those present numbering 30 people, more or less, are really committed, Sen. Honasan replied:  “Kung kaya nating pumatay sa ating mga kalaban, kaya din nating pumatay sa mga kasamahang magtataksil.”  I decided not to pursue further questions;
11.    That in the course of the meeting, he presented the plan of action to achieve the goals of NRP, i.e., overthrow of the government under the present leadership thru armed revolution and after which, a junta will be constituted and that junta will run the new government.  He further said that some of us will resign from the military service and occupy civilian positions in the new government.  He also said that there is urgency that we implement this plan and that we would be notified of the next activities.
12.    That after the discussion and his presentation, he explained the rites that we were to undergo-some sort of “blood compact”.  He read a prayer that sounded more like a pledge and we all recited it with raised arms and clenched fists.  He then took a knife and demonstrated how to make a cut on the left upper inner arm until it bleeds.  The cut was in form of the letter “I” in the old alphabet but was done in a way that it actually looked like letter “H”.  Then, he pressed his right thumb against the blood and pressed the thumb on the lower middle portion of the copy of the Prayer.  He then covered his thumb mark in blood with tape.  He then pressed the cut on his left arm against the NRP flag and left mark of letter “I” on it.  Everybody else followed;
13.    That when my turn came, I slightly made a cut on my upper inner arm and pricked a portion of it to let it bleed and I followed what Senator HONASAN did;
14.    That I did not like to participate in the rites but I had the fear for my life with what Senator HONASAN said that “…kaya nating pumatay ng kasamahan”;
15.    That after the rites, the meeting was adjourned and we left the place;
16.    That I avoided Captain Alejano after that meeting but I was extra cautious that he would not notice it for fear of my life due to the threat made by Senator HONASAN during the meeting on June 4, 2003 and the information relayed to me by Captain Alejano that their group had already deeply established their network inside the intelligence community;
17.    That sometime in the first week of July 2003, Captain Alejano came to see me to return the rifle that he borrowed and told me that when the group arrives at the Malacañang Compound for “D-DAY”, my task is to switch off the telephone PABX that serves the Malacañang complex.  I told him that I could not do it.  No further conversation ensued and he left;
18.    That on Sunday, July 27, 2003, while watching the television, I saw flashed on the screen Lieutenant Antonio Trillanes, Captain Gerardo Gambala, Captain Alejano and some others who were present during the June 4th meeting that I attended, having a press conference about their occupation of the Oakwood Hotel.  I also saw that the letter “I” on the arm bands and the banner is the same letter “I” in the banner which was displayed and on which we pressed our wound to leave the imprint of the letter “I”;
19.    That this Affidavit is being executed in order to attest the veracity of the foregoing and in order to charge SENATOR GREGORIO “GRINGO” HONASAN, Capt. FELIX TURINGAN, Capt. GARY ALEJANO, Lt. ANTONIO TRILLANES, Capt. GERARDO GAMBALA and others for violation of Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code for the offense of “coup d’etat”.   Emphasis supplied)


The affidavit-complaint is docketed as I.S. No. 2003-1120 and the Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the Department of Justice (DOJ Panel for brevity) sent a subpoena to petitioner for preliminary investigation.
 On August 27, 2003, petitioner, together with his counsel, appeared at the DOJ.  He filed a Motion for Clarification questioning DOJ’s jurisdiction over the case, asserting that since the imputed acts were committed in relation to his public office, it is the Office of the Ombudsman, not the DOJ, that has the jurisdiction to conduct the corresponding preliminary investigation;  that should the charge be filed in court, it is the Sandiganbayan, not the regular courts, that can legally take cognizance of the case considering that he belongs to the group of public officials with Salary Grade 31; and praying that the proceedings be suspended until final resolution of his motion.

            QUESTION: Is Honasan correct in his contention that the DOJ Panel does not have jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation? EXPLAIN.


PROBLEM NO.20. What do you mean by “prize” as a term applied in international law?

END OF EXAMINATION. (Please pay 4 pesos as xerox expense to your Honorable Mayor).

No comments: