ARROYO vs.
DOJ
J. Peralta | Sep. 18, 2012
TOPIC: PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
FACTS
(1) These are 3 consolidated petitions and supplemental petitions for Certiorari and
Prohibition under Rule 65.
(2) On August 2, 2011, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9266 approving the
creation of a joint committee with the DOJ which shall conduct preliminary
investigation on the alleged election offenses and anomalies committed during
the 2004 and 2007 elections.
(3) On August 4, 2011, COMELEC and DOJ issued Joint Order No. 001-2011
creating and constituting a Joint Committee (JC) and Fact-Find Team (FFT).
Section 2 of the Joint Order provides that the JC shall conduct preliminary
investigation while the FFT shall gather evidence for the preliminary investigation.
(4) On August 23, 2011, the JC promulgated its Rules of Procedure.
(5) On Oct. 20, 2011, the FFT concluded that manipulation of the results in the May
2007 senatorial elections in North and South Cotabato and Maguindanao were
indeed perpetrated.
a. The FFT recommended that petitioner GMA and Abalos, among others,
be subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage.
(6) Thereafter, petitioners filed before the SC separate petitions for Certiorari and
Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or WPI assailing the
creation of the JC.
(7) On Nov. 16, 2011, the JC issued a Joint Resolution (JR) which the COMELEC
adopted. The JR ordered that information for the crime of electoral sabotage be
filed against GMA, et al.
(8) Pursuant to the JR, the COMELEC filed with the RTC Pasay an information
against GMA et al.
(9) On Nov. 18, 2011, GMA filed with the RTC a Motion to Vacate Ad Cautelam
praying that the JR be vacated for being null and void. Ultimately, GMA was
arrested and she filed a Motion for Bail which was granted.
ISSUE:
(1) WON Joint Order No. 001-2011 is constitutional in light of the following:
a. The due process clause of the 1987 Constitution
b. The equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution
c. The principle of separation of powers
d. The independence of the COMELEC as a constitutional body
(2) WON the COMELEC has jurisdiction under the law to conduct preliminary
investigation jointly with the DOJ.
a. WON due process was observed by the Joint DOJ-COMELEC FFT and
Preliminary Investigation Committee, and the COMELEC in the conduct
of the preliminary investigation and approval of the Joint Panel’s
Resolution.
RATIO
(1) The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Joint Order No. 001-2011
(2) On the validity of the conduct of preliminary investigation:
The SC held that petitioners failed to establish any legal impediment to the creation of
the Joint DOJ-COMELEC Preliminary Investigation Committee and FFT.
a. While GMA and Mike Arroyo were among those subjected to preliminary
investigation, not all respondents therein were linked to GMA; thus, Joint
Order No. 001-2011 does not violate the equal protection clause.
b. The due process clause is likewise not infringed by the alleged prejudgment
of the case as petitioners failed to prove that the Joint Panel itself showed
such bias and partiality against them. Neither was it shown that the DOJ
Secretary herself actually intervened in the conduct of the Preliminary
Investigation.
c. The assailed Joint Order No. 001-2011 did not create new offices because
the JC and FFT perform functions that they already perform by virtue of the
Constitution, the statutes, and the Rules of Court.
d. In acting jointly with the DOJ, the COMELEC cannot be considered to have
abdicated its independence in favor of the executive branch. Resolution No.
9266 was validly issued by the COMELEC as a means to fulfil its duty of
ensuring the prompt investigation and prosecution of election offenses. The
role of the DOJ in the conduct of the preliminary investigation of election
offenses has long been recognized by the COMELEC because of its lack of
funds and legal officers to conduct investigations and to prosecute such
cases on its own. This is especially true after RA 9369 vested in the
COMELEC and the DOJ the concurrent jurisdiction to conduct
preliminary investigation of all election offenses. While the SC uphold
the validity of Resolution No. 9266 and Joint Order No. 01-2011, the SC
declares the Join Committee’s Rules of Procedure infirm for failure to comply
with the publication requirement. Consequently, Rule 112 of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure and the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure govern.
e. Petitioners were given the opportunity to be heard.
DISPOSITIVE: GMA et al.’s petitions DISMISSED
DOJ-COMELEC panel and proceedings VALID
 DISSENTING OPINIONS

(1) J. CARPIO

Tañada vs. Tuvera requires publication of administrative rules that have the force and
effect of law and the Revised Administrative Code requires the filing of such rules with
the UP Law Center as facets of the constitutional guarantee of procedural due
process, to prevent surprise and prejudice to the public who are legally presumed to
know the law.

As the Committee Rules merely complement and even reiterate Rule 112 of the Rules
on Criminal Procedure, J. Carpio cannot see how their non-publication and non-filing
caused surprise or prejudice to petitioners.

(2) J. BRION

Sec. 225 of BP 225 (Omnibus Election Code) granted the COMELECT the exclusive
power to conduct preliminary investigations and prosecute election offenses. Looking
then at the practical limitations arising from such broad grant of power, Congress also
empowered the COEMELEC to avail the assistance of the prosecuting arms of the
government. Under the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the Chief State
Prosecutor, all Provincial and City Fiscals, and their respective assistances were
given continuing authority as deputies of the COMELEC to conduct preliminary
investigation of complaints involving election offenses that may be filed directly with
them or that may be indorsed to them by the COMELEC or its representatives to
prosecute the same.

Art. 9 (C), Sec. 2 of the1987 Constitution vests in COMELEC the plenary power to
“investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws,
including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses and malpractices.”
To discharge its duty effectively, the Constitution endowed the COMELEC with
special features which elevate it above other investigative and prosecutorial agencies
of the government.

RA 9369 vests the COMELEC to have concurrent power with the other prosecuting
arms of the government, to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses,
and to prosecute these offenses. Thus, under the present framework, the COMELEC
and DOJ and its prosecuting arms have equal jurisdiction to conduct preliminary
investigation and prosecute election offenses. Effectively, this means that the DOJ
can conduct preliminary investigations of election offenses not merely as deputies but
independently of COMELEC.

The only arrangement constitutionally possible, given the independence of the

COMELEC and despite RA 9369, is for the DOJ to be a mere deputy or delegate
of the COMELEC and not a co-equal partner in the investigation and
prosecution of election offenses whenever COMELEC itself directly acts.