G.R. No. 159747. June 15, 2004.
SENATOR GREGORIO B. HONASAN II, petitioner, vs. THE PANEL OF INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIDG-PNP-P/DIRECTOR EDUARDO MATILLANO, AND THE HON. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II filed a motion to cite the DOJ Panel of Investigating Prosecutors in contempt of court. This arose after the Panel issued an order on April 23, 2004, directing Honasan to file his counter-affidavit in a preliminary investigation for coup d’etat by May 3, 2004. Honasan argued this order blatantly violated a status quo agreement, which was part of the Court’s November 18, 2003 Resolution, wherein parties agreed to maintain the situation before his petition for certiorari was filed. He had filed that petition challenging the Panel’s jurisdiction, which the Court dismissed in a Decision dated April 13, 2004. Honasan received the Decision on April 22, 2004, and had until May 7, 2004, to file a motion for reconsideration. He contended the Panel’s order was premature, intended to pre-empt any reconsideration, and upset the status quo, thereby obstructing justice.
The respondent Panel countered that the assailed order was issued in good faith to implement the Supreme Court’s April 13 Decision, which upheld its concurrent jurisdiction. It argued the intent was not to disregard the Court but to proceed with the long-pending preliminary investigation, respecting the petitioner’s right to a speedy disposition of his case and his opportunity to present evidence. The Panel emphasized it had desisted from action pending the Court’s resolution of the jurisdictional issue and that contempt requires a contumacious attitude, which was absent.

ISSUE

Whether the DOJ Panel of Investigating Prosecutors should be cited in contempt of court for issuing the April 23, 2004 order requiring Honasan to submit his counter-affidavit.

RULING

The Court denied the motion to cite the respondent Panel in contempt. Contempt of court involves a willful disregard of court orders or conduct that impedes justice and brings the court’s authority into disrepute. The power to punish for contempt is preservative, not vindictive, and should be used sparingly. The Court found no contemptuous intent on the part of the Panel. While the April 13 Decision was not yet final when the order was issued, the Panel acted based on the Court’s clear ruling upholding its jurisdiction. Its explanation that it sought to proceed with the investigation commenced in August 2003, considering the petitioner’s right to a speedy disposition and opportunity to adduce evidence, was satisfactory and not contumacious.
Furthermore, the Court noted that petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration of the April 13 Decision only on June 8, 2004, which was thirty days late. Consequently, the Decision had attained finality on May 8, 2004, removing any impediment for the Panel to proceed. Thus, the Panel’s act did not constitute a defiance of judicial authority warranting contempt. The Court, however, required the Panel to grant petitioner a fresh period from receipt of this Resolution to submit his counter-affidavit.