ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS (Arroyo vs.

DOJ) Section 2-21

G.R. No. 199082               July 23, 2013 perpetrated.6 The Fact-Finding Team recommended, among others, that petitioner Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. (Abalos) be
subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage for conspiring to manipulate the election results in North
JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, Petitioner,  and South Cotabato; that GMA and Abalos be subjected to another preliminary investigation for manipulating the
vs. election results in Maguindanao;7 and, that Mike Arroyo be subjected to further investigation.8 The case was docketed
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; HON. LEILA DE LIMA, in her capacity as as DOJ-Comelec Case No. 001-2011.
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 Meanwhile, on October 17, 2011, Senator Pimentel filed a ComplaintAffidavit9 for Electoral Sabotage against
COMMITTEE and FACT-FINDING TEAM, Respondents. petitioners and twelve others, and several John Does and Jane Does. The case was docketed as DOJ-Comelec Case No.
002-2011.
x-----------------------x
On October 24, 2011, the Joint Committee issued two subpoenas against petitioners in DOJ-Comelec Case Nos. 001-
G.R. No. 199085 2011 and 002-2011.10 On November 3, 2011, petitioners, through counsel, appeared before the Joint Committee11 and
respondents therein were ordered to submit their Counter-Affidavits by November 14, 2011.12
BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, SR., Petitioner, 
vs. Thereafter, petitioners filed before the Court separate Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the
HON. LEILA DE LIMA, in capacity as Secretary of Justice; HON. SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., in his Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction assailing the creation of the
capacity as COMELEC Chairperson; RENE V. SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO V. Joint Panel.13 The petitions were eventually consolidated.
VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM AND AUGUSTO C. LAGMAN, i2 their
capacity as COMELEC COMMISSIONERS; CLARO A. ARELLANO, GEORGE C. DEE, JACINTO G. ANG, On November 14, 2011, Mike Arroyo filed a Motion to Defer Proceedings14 before the Joint Committee, in view of the
ROMEO B. FORTES AND MICHAEL D. VILLARET, in their capacity as CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS, pendency of his petition before the Court. On the same day, GMA filed before the Joint Committee an Omnibus Motion
RESPECTIVELY, OF THE JOINT DOJ-COMELEC PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE ON Ad Cautelam15 to require Senator Pimentel to furnish her with documents referred to in his complaint-affidavit and for
THE 2004 AND 2007 ELECTION FRAUD,Respondents. the production of election documents as basis for the charge of electoral sabotage. GMA prayed that she be allowed to
file her counter-affidavit within ten (10) days from receipt of the requested documents.16Petitioner Abalos, for his part,
x-----------------------x filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings (Ex Abundante Ad Cautelam),17 in view of the pendency of his petition brought
before the Court.
G.R. No. 199118
In an Order18 dated November 15, 2011, the Joint Committee denied the aforesaid motions of petitioners. GMA,
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, Petitioner, 
subsequently, filed a motion for reconsideration.19
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by Chairperson Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr., DEPARTMENT OF On November 16, 2011, the Joint Committee promulgated a Joint Resolution which was later indorsed to the
JUSTICE, represented by Secretary Leila M. De Lima, JOINT DOJ-COMELEC PRELIMINARY Comelec.20 On November 18, 2011, the Comelec en banc issued a Resolution21 approving and adopting the Joint
INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE, SENATOR AQUILINO M. PIMENTEL III, and DOJ-COMELEC FACT Resolution subject to modifications. The Comelec resolved, among others, that an information for electoral sabotage be
FINDING TEAM,Respondents. filed against GMA and Abalos, while the charges against Mike Arroyo be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
RESOLUTION On even date, pursuant to the above Resolution, the Comelec’s Law Department filed with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Pasay City, an Information against petitioner GMA, Governor Andal Ampatuan, Sr., and Atty. Lintang H.
PERALTA, J.:
Bedol, for violation of Section 42(b)(3) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9369, amending Section 27 (b) of RA 6646,
For resolution are the separate motions for reconsideration filed by movants Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA)1 in G.R. docketed as Criminal Case No. RPSY-11-04432-CR.22 The case was raffled to Branch 112 and the corresponding
No. 199118 and Jose Miguel T. Arroyo (Mike Arroyo )2 in G.R. No. 199082 praying that the Court take a second look Warrant of Arrest was issued which was served on GMA on the same day.23
at our September 18, 2012 Decision3 dismissing their petitions and supplemental petitions against respondents
On November 18, 2011, GMA filed with the RTC an Urgent Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam24 with leave to allow the
Commission on Elections (Comelec), the Department of Justice (DOJ), Senator Aquilino M. Pimentel III (Senator
Joint Committee to resolve the motion for reconsideration filed by GMA, to defer issuance of a warrant of arrest and a
Pimentel), Joint DOJ-Comelec Preliminary Investigation Committee (Joint Committee) and DOJ-Comelec Fact-
hold departure order, and to proceed to judicial determination of probable cause. She, likewise, filed with the Comelec
Finding Team (Fact-Finding Team), et al.
a Motion to Vacate Ad Cautelam25 praying that its Resolution be vacated for being null and void. The RTC,
For a better perspective, we briefly state the relevant factual and procedural antecedents as found by the Court in the nonetheless, issued a Warrant for her arrest which was duly served. GMA was later arraigned and she entered a plea of
assailed decision, to wit: "not guilty." She was, for some time, on hospital arrest but was able to obtain temporary liberty when her motion for
bail was granted. At present, she is again on hospital arrest by virtue of a warrant issued in another criminal case.
On August 15, 2011, the Comelec and the DOJ issued Joint Order No. 001-2011 creating and constituting a Joint
Committee and Fact-Finding Team (referred to as Joint Panel) on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections electoral fraud On September 18, 2012, the Court rendered the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
and manipulation cases. The Joint Committee was mandated to conduct the necessary preliminary investigation on the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions and supplemental petitions are DISMISSED. Comelec Resolution
basis of the evidence gathered and the charges recommended by the Fact-Finding Team. The Fact-Finding Team, on the
No. 9266 dated August 2, 2011, Joint Order No. 001-2011 dated August 15, 2011, and the Fact- Finding Team’s Initial
other hand, was created for the purpose of gathering real, documentary, and testimonial evidence which can be utilized
Report dated October 20, 2011, are declared VALID. However, the Rules of Procedure on the Conduct of Preliminary
in the preliminary investigation to be conducted by the Joint Committee. Pursuant to Section 74 of the Joint Order, on
Investigation on the Alleged Election Fraud in the 2004 and 2007 National Elections is declared INEFFECTIVE for
August 23, 2011, the Joint Committee promulgated its Rules of Procedure.
lack of publication.
In its Initial Report5 dated October 20, 2011, the Fact-Finding Team concluded that manipulation of the results in the
May 14, 2007 senatorial elections in the provinces of North and South Cotabato, and Maguindanao was indeed

1
ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS (Arroyo vs. DOJ) Section 2-21

In view of the constitutionality of the Joint Panel and the proceedings having been conducted in accordance with Rule Comelec and other prosecuting arms of the government, such as the DOJ, now exercise concurrent jurisdiction in the
112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and Rule 34 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, the conduct of the preliminary investigation and prosecution of election offenses.
investigation is hereby declared VALID.
Indeed, as aptly pointed out by GMA, there is a discrepancy between Comelec Resolution No. 346741 dated January
Let the proceedings in the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 112, where the criminal cases for electoral 12, 2001 and Joint Order No. 001-2011, dated August 15, 2011, creating and constituting a Joint Committee and Fact-
sabotage against petitioners GMA and Abalos are pending, proceed with dispatch. Finding Team on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections electoral fraud and manipulation cases. However, GMA seemed
to miss the date when these two resolutions were promulgated by the Comelec. It is noteworthy that Comelec
SO ORDERED.26 Resolution No. 3467 was issued when Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code was still effective, while Joint Order
No. 001-2011 as well as Comelec Resolution Nos. 873342 and 905743 mentioned in the assailed decision but missed
Hence, these motions for reconsideration.
out by GMA in her motion, were issued during the effectivity of Section 43 of RA 9369, giving the Comelec and other
Issues prosecuting arms of the government the concurrent jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute election offenses. This
amendment paved the way for the discrepancy. In Comelec Resolution No. 3467, the Comelec maintained the
Mike Arroyo reiterates his arguments on the independence of the Comelec as basis in nullifying the subject joint DOJ- continuing deputation of prosecutors and the Comelec Law Department was tasked to supervise the investigatory and
Comelec resolutions. Echoing Justice Arturo Brion in his Dissenting and Concurring Opinion,27 Mike Arroyo insists prosecutory functions of the task force pursuant to the mandate of the Omnibus Election Code. However, with the
that the creation of the Joint Panel undermines the decisional independence of the Comelec.28 amendment, the Comelec likewise changed the tenor of the later resolutions to reflect the new mandate of the Comelec
and other prosecuting arms of the government now exercising concurrent jurisdiction. Thus, the Comelec Law
Mike Arroyo also maintains that the DOJ should conduct preliminary investigation only when deputized by the Department and the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor of the DOJ were tasked to jointly supervise the investigatory
Comelec but not exercise concurrent jurisdiction.29 Finally, as has been repeatedly pointed out in his earlier pleadings and prosecutory functions of the Comelec-DOJ Task Force. Considering, therefore, that the later resolutions, including
before the Court, Mike Arroyo claims that the proceedings involving the electoral sabotage case were rushed because Joint Order No. 001-2011, were issued pursuant to Section 43 of RA 9369 amending Section 265 of BP 881 which was
of pressures from the executive branch of the government.30 declared "constitutional" in Banat, there is no reason for us to declare otherwise. To maintain the previous role of other
prosecuting arms of the government as mere deputies despite the amendment would mean challenging Section 43 of
For her part, GMA claims that in availing of the procedural remedies available, she merely exercised her earnest efforts
RA 9369 anew which has already been settled in Banat.
to defend herself and should not have been deemed by the Court as acts which purportedly tend to demonstrate that she
either waived or forfeited her right to submit her counter-affidavit and countervailing evidence.31 Citing several cases To be sure, the creation of a Joint Committee is not repugnant to the concept of "concurrent jurisdiction" authorized by
decided by the Court, she likewise faults the Court in not upholding her right to ask for additional time within which to the amendatory law. As we explained in our September 18, 2012 Decision:
submit her counter-affidavit and countervailing evidence.32 GMA highlights that the subject Comelec Resolution
creating the Joint Panel is different from the previous Comelec resolutions requesting the DOJ Secretary to assign x x x The doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction means equal jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter. Contrary to
prosecutors to assist the Comelec, as the latter emphasize the role of the DOJ as deputized agency in the conduct of the contention of the petitioners, there is no prohibition on simultaneous exercise of power between two coordinate
preliminary investigation. She maintains that it is the Comelec and not the Joint Committee that has the primary, if not bodies. What is prohibited is the situation where one files a complaint against a respondent initially with one office
exclusive, authority to conduct preliminary investigation of election cases.33 (such as the Comelec) for preliminary investigation which was immediately acted upon by said office and the re-filing
of substantially the same complaint with another office (such as the DOJ). The subsequent assumption of jurisdiction
In their Consolidated Comment,34 respondents defend the creation of the Joint Committee and argue that it does not 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
undermine the independence of the Comelec as a constitutional body because it is still the Comelec that ultimately takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others.
determines probable cause.35 As to the conduct of the preliminary investigation, respondents maintain that no rights
were violated as GMA was afforded the opportunity to defend herself, submit her counter-affidavit and other xxxx
countervailing evidence.36 They, thus, consider GMA’s claim of availing of the remedial measures as "delaying tactics"
employed to thwart the investigation of charges against her by the Joint Committee.37 None of these problems would likely arise in the present case. The Comelec and the DOJ themselves agreed that they
would exercise their concurrent jurisdiction jointly. Although the preliminary investigation was conducted on the basis
The Court’s Ruling 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
Clearly from the above discussion, movants raise issues that have been thoroughly explained by the Court in the investigation was conducted by only one investigative body. Thus, we find no reason to disallow the exercise of
assailed decision. The issues were all addressed and the explanation was exhaustive, thus, we find no reason to disturb concurrent jurisdiction jointly by those given such authority. This is especially true in this case given the magnitude of
the Court’s conclusions. 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.44
At any rate, if only to address the motions of the movants herein and to put an end to the questions attached to the
creation of the Joint Panel and, consequently, to the performance of their assigned tasks, we hereby reiterate our Notwithstanding the grant of concurrent jurisdiction, the Comelec and the DOJ nevertheless included a provision in the
findings and conclusions made in the assailed decision. assailed Joint Order whereby the resolutions of the Joint Committee finding probable cause for election offenses shall
still be approved by the Comelec in accordance with the Comelec Rules of Procedure.45 With more reason, therefore,
This is not the first time that the Court is confronted with the issue of whether the Comelec has the exclusive power to
that we cannot consider the creation of the Joint Committee as an abdication of the Comelec’s independence enshrined
investigate and prosecute cases of violations of election laws. In Barangay Association for National Advancement and
in the 1987 Constitution.
Transparency (BANAT) Party-List v. Commission on Elections,38 the constitutionality of Section 4339 of RA
936940 had already been raised by petitioners therein and addressed by the Court. While recognizing the Comelec’s Finally, we focus on the validity of the preliminary investigation conducted by the Joint Committee.
exclusive power to investigate and prosecute cases under Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 or the Omnibus Election Code,
the Court pointed out that the framers of the 1987 Constitution did not have such intention. This exclusivity is thus a The procedure in conducting the preliminary investigation is governed by Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
legislative enactment that can very well be amended by Section 43 of RA 9369. Therefore, under the present law, the Procedure and Rule 34 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure. Under both Rules,46 the respondent shall submit his
counter-affidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his defense, within ten (10)

2
ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS (Arroyo vs. DOJ) Section 2-21

days from receipt of the subpoena, with the complaint and supporting affidavits and documents.47 Also in both Rules, Finally, in our assailed decision, we already took judicial notice that not only did GMA enter a plea of "not guilty," she
respondent is given the right to examine evidence, but such right of examination is limited only to the documents or also filed a Motion for Bail and after due hearing, it was granted. Apparently, she benefited from the RTC Order giving
evidence submitted by complainants which she may not have been furnished and to copy them at her expense.48 her temporary liberty. In filing the motion before the RTC and actively participating therein, she has chosen to seek
judicial remedy before the RTC where the electoral sabotage case is pending instead of the executive remedy of going
As to the alleged denial of GMA’s right to examine documents, we maintain that no right was violated in view of the back to the Joint Committee for the submission of her counter-affidavit and countervailing evidence. Besides, as
limitation of such right as set forth above. We reiterate our explanation in the assailed decision, to wit: thoroughly discussed in the assailed decision, the irregularity or even the absence of preliminary investigation does not
impair the validity of the information filed against her.
While it is true that Senator Pimentel referred to certain election documents which served as bases in the allegations of
significant findings specific to the protested municipalities involved, there were no annexes or attachments to the WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motions for Reconsideration are DENIED for lack of merit.
complaint filed. As stated in the Joint Committee’s Order dated November 15, 2011 denying GMA’s Omnibus Motion
Ad Cautelam, Senator Pimentel was ordered to furnish petitioners with all the supporting evidence. However, Senator SO ORDERED.
Pimentel manifested that he was adopting all the affidavits attached to the Fact-Finding Team’s Initial Report.
Therefore, when GMA was furnished with the documents attached to the Initial Report, she was already granted the FACTS:
right to examine as guaranteed by the Comelec Rules of Procedure and the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Those were On August 15, 2011, the Comelec and the DOJ issued a Joint Order creating and constituting a Joint
the only documents submitted by the complainants to the Committee. If there are other documents that were referred to Committee and Fact-Finding Team on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections electoral fraud and
in Senator Pimentel’s complaint but were not submitted to the Joint Committee, the latter considered those documents
unnecessary at that point (without foreclosing the relevance of other evidence that may later be presented during the manipulation cases
trial) as the evidence submitted before it were considered adequate to find probable cause against her. x x x491âwphi1 In its Initial Report of the Fact-Finding Team concluded that manipulation of the results in the May 14, 2007
senatorial elections in the provinces of North and South Cotabato, and Maguindanao was indeed
Neither was GMA’s right violated when her motion for extension of time within which to submit her counter-affidavit perpetrated. It recommended that Petitioner Benjamin S. Abalos, GMA, and Mike Arroyo be subjected to
and countervailing evidence was consequently denied. The Rules use the term "shall" in requiring the respondent to preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage and manipulating the election results.
submit counter-affidavit and other countervailing evidence within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena. It is Thereafter, petitioners filed before the Court separate Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for
settled that the use of the word "shall" which is a word of command, underscores the mandatory character of the the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction assailing the
rule.50 As in any other rule, though, liberality in the application may be allowed provided that the party is able to creation of the Joint Panel.
present a compelling justification for the non-observance of the mandatory rules. In the 2008 Revised Manual for On September 18, 2012, the Court rendered the assailed Decision. It ruled that:
Prosecutors, investigating prosecutors allow or grant motions or requests for extension of time to submit counter- 1.    Fact- Finding Team’s Initial Report dated October 20, 2011, are declared VALID. However, the Rules of
affidavits when the interest of justice demands that respondent be given reasonable time or sufficient opportunity to Procedure on the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation on the Alleged Election Fraud in the 2004 and 2007
engage the services of counsel; examine voluminous records submitted in support of the complaint or undertake National Elections is declared INEFFECTIVE for lack of publication.
research on novel, complicated or technical questions or issues of law and facts of the case.51 2.    The Joint Panel and the proceedings having been conducted in accordance with Rule 112 of the Rules
on Criminal Procedure and Rule 34 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, the conduct of the preliminary
In this case, GMA claimed that she could not submit her counteraffidavit within the prescribed period because she investigation is hereby declared VALID.
needed to examine documents mentioned in Senator Pimentel’s complaint-affidavit. It appeared, however, that said
documents were not submitted to the Joint Committee and the only supporting documents available were those attached ISSUES:
to the Initial Report of the Fact-Finding Team. Admittedly, GMA was furnished those documents. Thus, at the time she
1.    Whether or not the creation of the Joint Panel undermines the decisional independence of the Comelec.
asked for the extension of time within which to file her counter-affidavit, she very well knew that the documents she
was asking were not in the record of the case. Obviously, she was not furnished those documents because they were not 2.    Whether or not the DOJ should conduct preliminary investigation only when deputized by the Comelec
submitted to the Joint Committee. Logically, she has no right to examine said documents. We cannot, therefore, fault but not exercise concurrent jurisdiction
the Joint Committee in consequently denying her motion for extension to file counter-affidavit as there was no
compelling justification for the non-observance of the period she was earlier required to follow. HELD:
1.    The grant of concurrent jurisdiction, the Comelec and the DOJ nevertheless included a provision in the
And as we held in the assailed decision: assailed Joint Order whereby the resolutions of the Joint Committee finding probable cause for election
There might have been overzealousness on the part of the Joint Committee in terminating the investigation, endorsing offenses shall still be approved by the Comelec in accordance with the Comelec Rules of Procedure. 45 With
the Joint Resolution to the Comelec for approval, and in filing the information in court. more reason, therefore, that we the the court cannot consider the creation of the Joint Committee as an
abdication of the Comelec’s independence enshrined in the 1987 Constitution
However, speed in the conduct of proceedings by a judicial or quasijudicial officer cannot per se be instantly attributed
to an injudicious performance of functions. The orderly administration of justice remains the paramount consideration 2.     The creation of a Joint Committee is not repugnant to the concept of "concurrent jurisdiction"
with particular regard to the peculiar circumstances of each case. To be sure, petitioners were given the opportunity to authorized by the amendatory law The doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction means equal jurisdiction to deal
present countervailing evidence. Instead of complying with the Joint Committee’s directive, several motions were filed with the same subject matter. Contrary to the contention of the petitioners, there is no prohibition on
but were denied by the Joint Committee. Consequently, petitioners’ right to submit counter-affidavit and countervailing simultaneous exercise of power between two coordinate bodies. What is prohibited is the situation where
evidence was forfeited. Taking into account the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases and following the one files a complaint against a respondent initially with one office (such as the Comelec) for preliminary
procedures set forth in the Rules on Criminal Procedure and the Comelec Rules of Procedure, the Joint Committee investigation which was immediately acted upon by said office and the re-filing of substantially the same
finally reached its conclusion and referred the case to the Comelec. The latter, in turn, performed its task and filed the complaint with another office (such as the DOJ). The subsequent assumption of jurisdiction by the second
information in court. Indeed, petitioners were given the opportunity to be heard. They even actively participated in the office over the cases filed will not be allowed. Indeed, it is a settled rule that the body or agency that first
proceedings and in fact filed several motions before the Joint Committee. Consistent with the constitutional mandate of takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others.
speedy disposition of cases, unnecessary delays should be avoided.52

3
ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS (Arroyo vs. DOJ) Section 2-21

FALLO: petition is denied