G.R. Nos. 92319-20 October 2, 1990
EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., petitioner, vs. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG) AND HON. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ in his capacity as Solicitor General, and the HON. OMBUDSMAN, respondents.

FACTS

Pursuant to a directive from President Corazon C. Aquino, the Solicitor General filed criminal complaints with the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) against Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. and others for the alleged misuse of coconut levy funds. The PCGG assigned a prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation. At the scheduled hearing, Cojuangco, instead of filing a counter-affidavit, filed motions to disqualify the PCGG from conducting the investigation, arguing it lacked jurisdiction and that its involvement violated his rights. The prosecutor denied these motions, declared the proceedings closed, and subsequently, the PCGG found probable cause and filed corresponding informations with the Sandiganbayan. Cojuangco then filed these petitions for prohibition with the Supreme Court, seeking to enjoin the PCGG’s proceedings.
Cojuangco argued that the power to conduct preliminary investigations in graft cases had been transferred to the Office of the Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution . He contended that allowing the PCGG, which was the complainant via the Solicitor General, to also conduct the investigation violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, as it made the PCGG both accuser and judge. The PCGG maintained its authority, citing its charter (Executive Order No. 14) which granted it such power.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) Whether the PCGG retained the power to conduct a preliminary investigation of graft cases after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution , which created the Office of the Ombudsman; and (2) Assuming it had such power, whether its conduct of the investigation violated Cojuangco’s rights to due process and equal protection.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the PCGG, dismissing the petitions. On the jurisdictional issue, the Court held that the PCGG’s power to conduct preliminary investigations, expressly conferred by its charter (E.O. No. 14), was not repealed by the creation of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Constitution provided that the existing Tanodbayan (then the prosecutorial arm) would continue to function “except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman.” The Court interpreted this to mean that the Ombudsman assumed the investigatory and prosecutorial functions previously held by the Tanodbayan. However, the PCGG’s powers were granted by a separate law and were not among those originally vested in the Tanodbayan; therefore, they were not automatically transferred to the Ombudsman. The PCGG and the Ombudsman possessed concurrent jurisdiction.
On the due process and equal protection challenge, the Court found no violation. It held that the PCGG was not acting as both complainant and judge. The Solicitor General, not the PCGG as a body, was the statutory complainant. The investigation was conducted by a designated prosecutor, not by the Commission itself. The Court emphasized that preliminary investigation is merely an inquisitorial proceeding to determine probable cause, not an adjudication of guilt. The subsequent filing of the information with the Sandiganbayan, an independent court, provided the requisite impartial tribunal. The Court also noted that the constitutional right to due process is not violated by the mere fact that the investigating body is under the executive branch, which also prosecutes cases. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.