Gregorio Honasan II vs. DOJ, G.R. No. 159747, 13 Apr 2004

Gregorio Honasan II vs.
DOJ
G.R. No. 159747, April 13, 2004
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
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personnel of the administrative agency and not the public need not be published. OMB-DOJ
Joint Circular 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 and does not
regulate the conduct of persons or the public, in general.
LEGAL DOCTRINE: Publication of Laws and Regulations in accordance to Article 2 of the Civil
Code; Rule on Interpretative Regulations
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:
 July 27, 2003: crime of coup d’ etat was committed by military personnel who
occupied Oakwood and Senator Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan, II
 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
 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:
 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.”
 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.
 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.
ISSUE:
Whether the Ombudsman-DOJ Joint Circular no. 95-001 is ineffective on the ground that
it was not published. (No. Publication is not required as it is in internal in nature)
HELD/RULING
 The Honorable Court has already laid down the rule in the case of People vs. Que Po
Lay, 94 Phil. 640 (1954) that only circulars and regulations which prescribe a penalty for
its violation should be published before becoming effective, this, on the general principle
and theory that before the public is bound by its contents, especially its penal provision a
law, regulation or circular must first be published and the people officially and specifically
informed of said contents and its penalties: said precedent, to date, has not yet been
modified or reversed.
 OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 DOES NOT contain any penal provision or
prescribe a mandatory act or prohibit any, under pain or penalty.
 In the case of Tañada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 453 (1986), the Honorable Court ruled that:
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
administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their
subordinates in the performance of their duties.
 OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 is merely an internal circular between the DOJ and
the Office of the Ombudsman, outlining authority and responsibilities among prosecutors
of Circular No. 95-001 DOES NOT regulate the conduct of persons or the public, in
general. Accordingly, there is no merit to petitioner’s submission that OMB-DOJ Joint
Circular No. 95-001 has to be published.

Gregorio Honasan II vs. DOJ, G.R. No. 159747, 13 Apr 2004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gregorio Honasan II vs. DOJ, G.R. No. 159747, 13 Apr 2004

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gregorio Honasan II vs. DOJ, G.R. No. 159747, 13 Apr 2004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gregorio Honasan II vs.

 August 4, 2003: CIDG-PNP/P Director Edguardo Matillano filed an affidavit-complaint

 Sworn statement of AFP Major Perfecto Ragil stated that:

You might also like