Arroyo vs. DOJ

JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO vs. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; HON. LEILA DE LIMA, in her capacity as Secretary of the Department of Justice; HON. SIXTO BRILLANTES, JR., in his capacity as Chairperson of the Commission on Elections; and the JOINT DOJ-COMELEC PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE and FACT-FINDING TEAM

G.R. No. 199082               July 23, 2013

The COMELEC and the DOJ issued Joint Order creating and constituting a Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections electoral fraud and manipulation. The Fact-Finding Team concluded that there was a manipulation of the results in the May 14, 2007 senatorial elections in the provinces of North and South Cotabato, and Maguindanao and recommended that petitioner Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. be subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage for conspiring to manipulate the election results in North and South Cotabato, results in Maguindanao and Mike Arroyo be subjected to further investigation. The Joint Committee issued two subpoenas against petitioners.

Thereafter, petitioners filed before the Court Separate Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction assailing the creation of the Joint Panel. The petitions were eventually consolidated. The Joint Committee denied the Motion to Defer Proceedings Arroyo and the Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam filed by Mike Arroyo and GMA.

The COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution approving and adopting the Joint Resolution promulgated by the Joint Committee subject to modifications. The information for electoral sabotage is filed against GMA and Abalos, while the charges against Mike Arroyo are dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

Mike Arroyo argued on the independence of the COMELEC as basis in nullifying the subject joint DOJ-COMELEC resolutions. Mike Arroyo insists that the creation of the Joint Panel undermines the decisional independence of the COMELEC and lastly, DOJ should conduct preliminary investigation only when deputized by the COMELEC but not exercise concurrent jurisdiction.

GMA claims that it is the COMELEC and not the Joint Committee that has the primary, if not exclusive, authority to conduct preliminary investigation of election cases.

On the other hand, respondents contend that the creation of the Joint Committee does not undermine the independence of the COMELEC as a constitutional body because it is still the COMELEC that ultimately determines probable cause.  

ISSUE:

Whether or not the DOJ should conduct preliminary investigation only when deputized by the COMELEC but not exercise concurrent jurisdiction?

RULING:

Under the present law, the COMELEC and other prosecuting arms of the government, such as the DOJ, now exercise concurrent jurisdiction in the investigation and prosecution of election offenses. The creation of a Joint Committee is not repugnant to the concept of "concurrent jurisdiction" authorized by the amendatory law. 

The doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction means equal jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter. Contrary to the contention of the petitioners, there is no prohibition on simultaneous exercise of power between two coordinate bodies. What is prohibited is the situation where one files a complaint against a respondent initially with one office for preliminary investigation which was immediately acted upon by said office and the re-filing of substantially the same complaint with another office. The subsequent assumption of jurisdiction by the second office over the cases filed will not be allowed. Indeed, it is a settled rule that the body or agency that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others.

The COMELEC and the DOJ themselves agreed that they would exercise their concurrent jurisdiction jointly. Although the preliminary investigation was conducted on the basis of  two complaints – the initial report of the Fact-Finding Team and the complaint of Senator Pimentel – both complaints were filed with the Joint Committee. Consequently, the complaints were filed with and the preliminary investigation was conducted by only one investigative body. Thus, we find no reason to disallow the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction jointly by those given such authority. This is especially true in this case given the magnitude of the crimes allegedly committed by petitioners. The joint preliminary investigation also serves to maximize the resources and manpower of both the COMELEC and the DOJ for the prompt disposition of the cases.