The camp of suspended Bureau of Corrections chief Gerald Bantag on Tuesday opted to seek for a reconsideration of its appeal on the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) panel of prosecutors’ resolution denying Bantag’s plea for the panel’s inhibition from hearing his case.
Bantag’s lawyer Rocky Thomas Balisong said a reconsideration will be filed instead of his counter-affidavit on his alleged involvement in the killing of veteran radio commentator Percival “Percy Lapid” Mabasa and Bilibid inmate Cristito Palana Villamor, alias Jun Villamor.
In a motion for reconsideration submitted during the resumption of the preliminary investigation, Balisong stressed the possible conflict of decision between the department and the Office of the Ombudsman where he filed murder raps against Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla in connection also with the same killings.
Balisong said there is significant new evidence and or development which is not prevailing at the time his motion for inhibition was dismissed by the prosecution panel headed by Deputy State Prosecutor Olivia Torrevillas.
“Assuming that the concurrent jurisdiction between the DOJ and the Ombudsman is applicable in this case, prudence dictates that the DOJ should inhibit and transfer the preliminary investigation of the cases to the Office of the Ombudsman since there is a question on the impartiality of the DOJ raised by the respondent, and none of the parties in this case questioned the impartiality of the Ombudsman,” Bantag’s motion stated.
“If the investigating panel of prosecutors will not inhibit, it will create a situation where the DOJ panel of prosecutors will conduct a preliminary investigation and the Ombudsman will also conduct its own preliminary investigation in the cases filed before them which arose from the same incident, the same victims and the same sets of characters,” it said.
Bantag said this may result into an absurd situation where a possible conflict in the results of the preliminary investigations by the DOJ and the Ombudsman whether it be the dismissal or finding of probable cause for the said cases.
“What happens if the DOJ finds probable cause against DG Bantag and the Ombudsman will find probable cause against SOJ Remulla out of the same incident and the same victims?What happens if the DOJ will issue a resolution charging respondent-movant as the mastermind and the Ombudsman will issue a resolution charging Secretary Remulla as the mastermind?So, two different masterminds are being charged? It will surely create a crisis between the two agencies,” the motion said.
To avoid such possibility, the suspended BuCor chief said it is best that the said cases be consolidated with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Bantag said even if he is to believe that the members of the DOJ panel are objective and may not be biased against him, still their resolution will be subject to Remulla’s approval as DOJ Secretary.
“The fact that Secretary Remulla exercises control and supervision over them clearly defines that the Secretary can substitute the findings of the panel to that of his own. That is the essence of the power of control. The power of control includes the power to substitute and alter the act and or decision of a subordinate to that of his own act and decision,’ Bantag said.
“Like any other human beings who are under the direct control and supervision of the Secretary of Justice who has displayed his bias and partiality against the respondent-movant, the latter cannot close his eyes on the extent of the tentacles of powers that the Secretary has over the members of the panel.The glaring bias and partiality of the Secretary of Justice is the reason why the motion for inhibition was filed,” he added.
Besides, Bantag said even if the panel will junk the cases against him, he does not expect Remulla to uphold such a move.
“For sure, the SOJ will reverse the dismissal and substitute it to a finding on the existence of probable cause,” he added.
In junking Bantag’s plea, the DOJ said his allegation of bias and partiality against the panel has no merit and is based on the wrong premise since the Justice Secretary does not participate in the conduct of preliminary investigation nor approves resolutions of the panel.
It said all resolutions in preliminary investigation cases are only approved by the Prosecutor General, Provincial Prosecutor or City Prosecutor.
Furthermore, the panel said Bantag was wrong to argue that the case should be investigated by the Office of the Ombudsman, and not the DOJ, as the former has no exclusive jurisdiction over investigation and prosecution of cases involving public officers and employees before the regular courts.
Meanwhile, Balisong said Bantag is ready to submit his counter-affidavit on the cases but only before an “independent and impartial tribunal”, which, in their view, is the Ombudsman.
“We are ready to submit it before an independent and impartial tribunal, which is the Office of the Ombudsman, and not the DOJ,” he said.
When asked why Bantag did not attend yesterday’s hearing, Balisong said his client has to attend to other important matters and that his non-attendance to the proceeding is allowed under the rules at this stage.
For his part, Lapid’s brother, Roy Mabasa rejected Bantag’s motion for reconsideration, saying there were no new arguments raised and it was just a reiteration of previous motion.
“We did not see anything new valid arguments in their motion for reconsideration,” Mabasa said.
He said they even filed a motion with the panel to have the case resolved, adding that the National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police also supported such a move to hasten the case.
The next hearing of the cases is set on January 31.