Scribd
Upload
46 views2 pages

Election Law Reviewer

1. The creation of the Joint Panel by COMELEC and DOJ to investigate electoral fraud in the 2004 and 2007 elections does not undermine COMELEC's decisional independence. While preliminary investigations are under COMELEC's exclusive jurisdiction, the law allows COMELEC to avail itself of assistance from other prosecution arms like DOJ. 2. The Joint Panel is not repugnant to the concept of concurrent jurisdiction between COMELEC and DOJ. Concurrent jurisdiction means equal jurisdiction over the same subject matter. Both agencies investigating simultaneously is allowed, unlike if the same complaint was filed with both agencies sequentially. The first agency to take cognizance has exclusive jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

Angelica
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
46 views2 pages

Election Law Reviewer

1. The creation of the Joint Panel by COMELEC and DOJ to investigate electoral fraud in the 2004 and 2007 elections does not undermine COMELEC's decisional independence. While preliminary investigations are under COMELEC's exclusive jurisdiction, the law allows COMELEC to avail itself of assistance from other prosecution arms like DOJ. 2. The Joint Panel is not repugnant to the concept of concurrent jurisdiction between COMELEC and DOJ. Concurrent jurisdiction means equal jurisdiction over the same subject matter. Both agencies investigating simultaneously is allowed, unlike if the same complaint was filed with both agencies sequentially. The first agency to take cognizance has exclusive jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

Angelica
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO vs.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
G.R. No. 199082
July 23, 2013
Facts:

Last 2011, Comelec and the DOJ created a joint committee and fact-finding team which will
investigate on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections for the alleged electoral fraud and manipulation
cases. It later on determined that there was manipulation of the results in the May 14, 2007 senatorial
elections in North and South Cotabato, and Maguindanao. It recommended that Petitioner Benjamin
S. Abalos, GMA, and Mike Arroyo be subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage
and manipulating the election results. But the COMELEC resolved to file charges for electoral
sabotage against GMA and not the others for insufficiency of evidence. Thus, petitioners filed before
the Court separate Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction assailing the creation of the Joint
Panel.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the creation of the Joint Panel undermines the decisional independence of the
Comelec.
2. Whether or not the DOJ should conduct preliminary investigation only when deputized by the
Comelec but not exercise concurrent jurisdiction

Held:
1. No. The power to conduct preliminary investigation is vested exclusively with the Comelec. The
latter,
however, was given by the same provision of law the authority to avail itself of the assistance of other
prosecuting arms of the government. Thus, under the Omnibus Election Code, while the exclusive
jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation had been lodged with the Comelec, the prosecutors
had been conducting preliminary investigations pursuant to the continuing delegated authority given
by the Comelec.

The creation of the Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team, should be viewed not as an abdication of
the constitutional body’s independence but as a means to fulfill its duty of ensuring the prompt
investigation and prosecution of election offenses as an adjunct of its mandate of ensuring a free,
orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.

2. No. 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 (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 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.

You might also like