Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla raised concerns over a potential violation of the sub judice rule after the Office of the Ombudsman requested responses from him and other respondents to a complaint filed by Senator Imee Marcos.
The complaint relates to the arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte, a case for which a habeas corpus petition is still pending before the Supreme Court.
The sub judice rule prohibits public discussion of cases under judicial review to prevent influencing the court’s proceedings.
Remulla expressed concern in responding to the complaint while the Supreme Court has yet to make a determination.
“Sub judice siya eh, why, it is so hard to answer something that is sub judice, wala pa ngang determination ang Supreme Court sa nangyari,” Remulla said.
Despite these concerns, Remulla confirmed that they still intend to file a counter-affidavit with the Ombudsman in response to the complaint.
Remulla, along with other respondents, Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) Director Major General Nicholas Torre and Special Envoy on Transnational Crime Markus V. Lacanilao, met at the Department of Justice on Friday morning to discuss their next steps.
“We might have to get an extension kasi 10 days is not enough,” Remulla said, referring to the 10-day deadline for submitting their responses.
Remulla added that while each respondent will submit a separate counter-affidavit for individual allegations, they will adopt a unified position on common procedural issues.
“We just agreed that we’ll adopt, we’ll just have one answer for all procedural issues, aside from the other allegations that are individual, then we have an answer for everyone for the commonly held issues, the procedural issues, we will adopt a common answer,” he explained.
This approach ensures consistency in addressing procedural matters while allowing each respondent the flexibility to respond to allegations specific to their own actions. The case continues to draw attention, not only for its legal implications but also due to the political personalities involved.
