DOJ urged to disqualify SolGen as PNP lawyers in sedition case vs. Robredo, et al.

Lawyers from the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) and former congressman Gary Alejano have asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to disqualify the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) as the police's lawyer in the investigation of a sedition complaint against them.

In separate motions, they argued the OSG cannot appear as counsel for the Philippine National Police's Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) during the preliminary investigation due to what they said was the possibility of a conflict of interest should future decisions be appealed before higher courts.

Alejano and lawyers Jose Manuel "Chel" Diokno, Theodore Te, Lorenzo "Erin" Reyes Tañada III are some of 38 respondents to a CIDG complaint that accuses them of having been involved in a plot to discredit and overthrow President Rodrigo Duterte. Vice President Leni Robredo was also tagged in the charges.

Prosecutors started investigating the complaint last August 9 in a hearing that was marked by the respondents' lawyers questioning the authority of the OSG to represent the CIDG.

The OSG justified its appearance as an act as the "tribune of the people." It said the Administrative Code of 1987 empowers the office to represent the Republic or the people "before any court, tribunal, body or commission in any matter, action or proceeding which, in his opinion, affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require."

The preliminary investigation determines whether or not prosecutors will file a case in court -- a resolution which, Alejano's motion claimed, would likely be challenged before the Court of Appeals (CA).

"The apprehension begs the question, which governmental entity will the OSG choose as client -- the department (the DOJ) under which it is attached or the PNP-CIDG-NCRFU, its client in the preliminary investigation?" it asked.

It said the OSG may represent the government in criminal proceedings only in the Supreme Court (SC) and the CA.

"With all due respect to the OSG, its insistence on representing the PNP-CIDG-NCRFU in the preliminary investigation of the instant case is surely an arrogation by the office of a power it clearly does not have," it said.

Both the Alejano and the FLAG motions cited a 1990 decision in which the SC ruled that the OSG "is not authorized to represent a public official at any stage of a criminal case."

The FLAG motion also argued that the OSG cannot justify its appearance as people's tribune because the current proceedings do not yet involve the People of the Philippines.

"The ostensible client of the OSG is the PNP-CIDG, which is not, by any stretch, the People of the Philippines," it said, adding that the OSG still cannot participate if the case would be elevated in court because the prosecution of cases is the "exclusive domain" of the National Prosecution Service.

"The PNP-CIDG has a legal service with lawyers in its ranks at its disposal. There is no justification for the intervention of the OSG in these proceedings, especially considering its patent lack of authority as well as the highly probable conflict of interest," it said.

The Alejano motion, for its part, called the OSG's representation of the CIDG in the sedition complaint is "unprecedented" and the office's "unparalleled and unusual zeal and persistence" in handling the case "suspicious."

The FLAG also asked the panel to declare all the OSG's actions in the case null and void for being done without authority.

The investigation of the sedition complaint will resume in September. FLAG lawyers have earlier questioned the authority of the panel of prosecutors handling the investigation. —NB, GMA News