The lawyers are complaining that the Department of Justice is biased against their client, suspended Bureau of Corrections Gerald Bantag. They claim that their client has not received the subpoena for him to attend the preliminary investigation and submit his counter affidavit.

According to the DoJ the subpoena was served to the last known address of Bantag in Caloocan hence it is deemed served to him. There may be merit to the claim of bias on the part of DoJ. It appears that the subpoena was served in a house that has no occupant or, if there was one at the time, the subpoena server went to the said residence when no one was there to receive it. The DoJ server went to the barangay captain of the place but the latter told him DG Bantag no longer stayed there.

No subpoena or its attachments, e.g sworn statements of complainant and witnesses, was left at the said Caloocan house, not even on its floor or placed under the front door. Neither was the Caloocan barangay captain given a copy of the subpoena and the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses.

It was reported last week that a lawyer of Bantag went to the DoJ to get the subpoena and copy of the complaints and the sworn statements of witnesses but it turned out they were not ready for release hence Bantag's lawyer came empty-handed. The attempt to get the DoJ summons is a positive indication that Bantag wants and intends to participate in the preliminary investigation. It is puzzling why the subpoena server did not leave a copy in the Caloocan house of Bantag or at the very least with the barangay captain, who could have given the same to Bantag or to his representative, should either of them goes to the said dwelling or to the barangay official's office, after all the server already went there to verify the address of the intended recipient.

In a widely publicized interview in Baguio City a few days ago, Bantag laughed off reports that he was either missing or in hiding. Understandably so, since there is no basis for such speculation, there being no warrant of arrest issued by any court for his arrest. A warrant of arrest is issued only after a finding of probable cause that a respondent may have probably committed the crime charged him, and information is filed in court, and after a personal examination by the presiding judge and being convinced that on the basis of the testimonial and documentary evidence, there is probable cause.

If the DoJ is so minded, it could have caused the service of the subpoena and other papers to Bantag in Baguio City. A simple coordination with its local officials and the PNP would have resulted in getting the latest residence of Bantag.

Given the aforementioned circumstances, the plaint of Bantag's lawyers that the DoJ is biased against their client and hell-bent on railroading his case, seems to be justified, especially so that its official position was that it has a very strong case against Bantag.

By issuing such a statement, it shatters its objectivity in deterring the existence of probable cause given that the panel of prosecutors that will determine the probable cause is under the Department of Justice. How can they go against the position of the department?

The twin murder cases being pinned on Bantag are heinous crimes and therefore the grant of bail or temporary liberty while the cases are pending is not a matter of right. He faces indefinite detention.

Worse, he is in mortal danger from the convicted criminals he had crossed and whose drug syndicates he has dismantled inside prison. He could certainly be walking dead if he is incarcerated.

It is for this reason that there should be no appearance of bias against Bantag by the prosecuting arm of the government. It must be beyond suspicion like Caesar's wife. It must tread carefully in the observance of due process.

Any appearance of impropriety will impair the public perception of a just resolution of the case and accord the respondent the due process guaranteed him by the Constitution. He may lose his trust in the fairness and objectivity of the administrative proceeding he will be subjected to. He may be compelled, as a last recourse, to opt for the unwelcome step of placing himself inaccessible to the authorities.

By reason of the perceived bias of the DoJ against their principal, the lawyers of Bantag are entertaining thoughts of not participating in the preliminary investigation and demanding the inhibition of the Department of Justice from the same. They are thinking of asking the Office of the Ombudsman to handle it instead.

This is an interesting development and poses a novel legal question on jurisdiction relative to the preliminary investigation.