MANILA, Philippines – Where does Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales stand on the jurisdiction issues on Senator Leila de Lima’s drug charges? 

This was one of the issues raised by Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo on Tuesday, March 21, during the 2nd round of oral arguments on the detained senator’s petitions to nullify the drug cases against her and the arrest order by a Muntinlupa court.

Del Castillo noted that Morales did not, at any stage of the panel investigation of the Department of Justice, invoke her jurisdiction and ask the DOJ for the De Lima cases to be transferred to her office.

“[The SC ruling] on Honasan vs DOJ panel is very clear that at any stage of the proceeding, the Ombudsman can take over the case,” Del Castillo said.

Former solicitor general Florin Hilbay, lead oralist for the De Lima camp, suggested that the High Court ask Morales to submit her own comment. 

Hilbay said they had filed a motion before the DOJ to refer the cases to the Ombudsman, but to no avail.

Hilbay has repeatedly insisted that from the start, the investigation of De Lima was irregular because DOJ prosecutors conducted the probe instead of Ombudsman prosecutors who have jurisdiction over the senator. (READ: EXPLAINER: Issues on jurisdiction on De Lima cases)

DOJ-Ombudsman MOA

Del Castillo pointed out that there is an existing memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the DOJ and the Office of the Ombudsman which streamlines jurisdictional issues. 

Morales and De Lima, who was then justice secretary, signed the MOA in March 2012.

Solicitor General Jose Calida had used the same MOA against De Lima in his earlier comment before the court.

Calida cited a provision in the MOA which says, “The Ombudsman and the prosecution offices of the DOJ shall have concurrent jurisdiction over complaints for crimes involving public officers and employees falling outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.”

Hilbay pointed out, however, that the cited provision has a caveat of “officers falling outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.”

Hilbay used the MOA to support the argument that De Lima’s case is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the anti-graft court.

He cited the first provision of the MOA: “The Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction in the conduct of preliminary investigation and inquest proceedings over complaints for crimes cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.” 

Del Castillo asked Hilbay for the provision in the MOA that would settle questions on jurisdiction should the two agencies fight over a case.

“Is the MOA silent on these situations where the Ombudsman wishes to assert – I’m thinking here theoretically – while the DOJ wishes also to assert its jurisdiction?” Del Castillo asked Hilbay.

Hilbay said it is for the High Court to resolve the matter.

“This will never end. The petitioner will simply go back to this Court again and again, we’d be wasting so much time and effort of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals if we don’t decide this case right now,” Hilbay said.

Rappler has sent a request to the Office of the Ombudsman for its side on the issue. – Rappler.com