JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; HON. LEILA DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; HON. SIXTO …

Arroyo versus Department of Justice

The Case

This is the resolution of the motions for reconsideration filed by Jose Miguel T. Arroyo, whom the Court calls Mike Arroyo, and by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, whom the Court calls GMA, against the Decision of the Supreme Court dated September 18, 2012. That Decision dismissed their petitions and supplemental petitions challenging the creation of a Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team by the Commission on Elections and the Department of Justice, and upheld the preliminary investigation conducted on the alleged electoral fraud and manipulation in the 2004 and 2007 national elections. The case matters because it settles, as a matter of constitutional and statutory law, that the Commission on Elections no longer holds exclusive authority to investigate election offenses, and that it may exercise that authority jointly with the Department of Justice.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed before the Supreme Court separate petitions for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction, assailing the creation of the Joint Panel. The petitions were consolidated. On September 18, 2012, the Court rendered its Decision dismissing the petitions and supplemental petitions, declaring the challenged resolutions and the Fact-Finding Team's Initial Report valid, declaring the Rules of Procedure on the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation ineffective for lack of publication, but declaring the conduct of the preliminary investigation valid and ordering the criminal proceedings before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 112, to proceed with dispatch. Mike Arroyo and GMA then filed separate motions for reconsideration, which the Court resolved in this decision.

Facts

On August 15, 2011, the Commission on Elections and the Department of Justice issued a Joint Order creating a Joint Committee and a Fact-Finding Team, together called the Joint Panel, on the 2004 and 2007 national elections electoral fraud and manipulation cases. The Fact-Finding Team was to gather real, documentary, and testimonial evidence, while the Joint Committee was to conduct the preliminary investigation on the basis of that evidence and the charges recommended. Pursuant to the Joint Order, the Joint Committee promulgated its Rules of Procedure on August 23, 2011.

In its Initial Report dated October 20, 2011, the Fact-Finding Team concluded that manipulation of the results in the May 14, 2007 senatorial elections in North and South Cotabato and Maguindanao was indeed perpetrated. It recommended that Benjamin Abalos, Sr. be subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage in North and South Cotabato, that GMA and Abalos be subjected to another preliminary investigation for Maguindanao, and that Mike Arroyo be subjected to further investigation. Meanwhile, Senator Aquilino Pimentel III filed a complaint-affidavit for electoral sabotage against the petitioners and others. The Joint Committee issued subpoenas against the petitioners, who appeared through counsel, and the respondents were ordered to submit their counter-affidavits.

The petitioners then filed their petitions before the Supreme Court assailing the Joint Panel. Mike Arroyo moved to defer proceedings, GMA filed an omnibus motion asking that Senator Pimentel furnish her with the documents referred to in his complaint and for more time to file her counter-affidavit, and Abalos moved to suspend proceedings. The Joint Committee denied these motions. It then promulgated a Joint Resolution indorsed to the Commission on Elections, which approved it and resolved that an information for electoral sabotage be filed against GMA and Abalos while the charges against Mike Arroyo be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. An information was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, a warrant of arrest was issued and served on GMA, and she was later arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. She was granted bail after hearing.

Issues

• Whether or not the creation of the Joint Panel undermines the decisional independence of the Commission on Elections.
• Whether or not the Department of Justice may exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the Commission on Elections in the preliminary investigation of election offenses, rather than acting only as a deputized agency.
• Whether or not GMA's right to examine documents and to be granted an extension of time to submit her counter-affidavit and countervailing evidence was violated.
• Whether or not the preliminary investigation was validly conducted despite the alleged haste in the proceedings.

Applicable Provisions

Section 43 of Republic Act No. 9369, amending Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881, provides:

Section 265. Prosecution. The Commission shall, through its duly authorized legal officers, have the power, concurrent with the other prosecuting arms of the government, to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Code, and to prosecute the same.

This provision is the textual basis for the Court's holding that the Commission on Elections and the Department of Justice exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the investigation and prosecution of election offenses.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the creation of the Joint Committee does not undermine the independence of the Commission on Elections. The Court had already upheld the constitutionality of Section 43 of Republic Act No. 9369 in the Banat case, and it noted that the Joint Order itself requires that the resolutions of the Joint Committee finding probable cause still be approved by the Commission on Elections in accordance with its Rules of Procedure. With more reason, therefore, the creation of the Joint Committee cannot be considered an abdication of the Commission's constitutional independence.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Commission on Elections and other prosecuting arms of the government, such as the Department of Justice, now exercise concurrent jurisdiction in the investigation and prosecution of election offenses. The Court explained the doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction in these words:

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.

The Court added that what is prohibited is the filing of substantially the same complaint before one office after another has already taken cognizance of it, and that no such problem arose here because both complaints were filed with, and investigated by, only one body, the Joint Committee.

On the third issue, the Court held that no right of GMA was violated. The right to examine evidence is limited to the documents or evidence submitted by the complainants which she may not have been furnished, and the documents she asked for were never submitted to the Joint Committee. As to the denial of her motion for extension, the Court stressed that the Rules use the word shall in requiring the counter-affidavit within ten days from receipt of the subpoena, and that liberality may be allowed only upon a compelling justification, which she did not show.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the preliminary investigation was valid. While there might have been overzealousness on the part of the Joint Committee, speed in the conduct of proceedings cannot per se be attributed to an injudicious performance of functions, and the petitioners were given the opportunity to be heard. The Court also noted that GMA had sought and obtained bail from the Regional Trial Court, and that the irregularity or even the absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the information filed.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, under Section 43 of Republic Act No. 9369, the Commission on Elections has the power, concurrent with the other prosecuting arms of the government, to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses and to prosecute the same. Second, the doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction means equal jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter, and there is no prohibition on the simultaneous exercise of power between two coordinate bodies; what is prohibited is the successive filing of substantially the same complaint before different offices, for the body that first takes cognizance of the complaint exercises jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others. Third, the joint exercise of that concurrent jurisdiction does not violate the constitutional independence of the Commission on Elections, especially where its approval of the Joint Committee's resolutions is still required. Fourth, the requirement to submit a counter-affidavit within ten days from receipt of the subpoena is mandatory, and extension may be granted only upon a compelling justification. Fifth, the irregularity or even the absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the information filed.

Disposition

The motions for reconsideration were denied for lack of merit, so the petitioners lost and the September 18, 2012 Decision stands.

Remember This

The one line worth memorizing is that the Commission on Elections and the Department of Justice exercise concurrent jurisdiction over election offenses, and concurrent jurisdiction means equal jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter. Examiners like to use this case to test the extent of the Commission on Elections' investigative and prosecutory powers after Republic Act No. 9369, and to test the effect of a defective or absent preliminary investigation on the validity of the information.