Arroyo vs. DOJ

7/25/2019 Arroyo vs. DOJ

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arroyo-vs-doj 1/26

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 199082 September 18, 2012

JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, Petitioner,vs.EPARTMENT O! JUSTICE" COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS" #ON. LEILA E LIMA, $% &er'(p('$t) (* Se'ret(r) o+ t&e ep(rtme%t o+ J*t$'e" #ON. SI-TO RILLANTES, .JR., $% &$*'(p('$t) (* C&($rper*o% o+ t&e Comm$**$o% o% E/e't$o%*" (% t&e JOINT OJCOMELECPRELIMINARY INESTIGATION COMMITTEE (% !ACT!INING TEAM, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 199083

ENJAMIN S. AALOS, SR., Petitioner,vs.#ON. LEILA E LIMA, $% &er '(p('$t) (* Se'ret(r) o+ J*t$'e" #ON. SI-TO S. RILLANTES,JR., $% &$* '(p('$t) (* COMELEC C&($rper*o%" RENE . SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N. TAGLE,ARMANO . ELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOP#, C#RISTIAN ROERT S. LIM AN AUGUSTO C.LAGMAN, $% t&e$r '(p('$t) (* COMELEC COMMISSIONERS" CLARO A. ARELLANO, GEOUGEC. EE, JACINTO G. ANG, ROMEO . !ORTES AN MIC#AEL . ILLARET, $% t&e$r '(p('$t)(* C#AIRPERSON AN MEMERS, RESPECTIELY, O! T#E JOINT OJCOMELECPRELIMINARY INESTIGATION COMMITEE ON T#E 2004 AN 2005 ELECTION!RAU,Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No.199118

GLORIA MACAPAGALARROYO, Petitioner,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, repre*e%te b) C&($rper*o% S$6to S. r$//(%te*, Jr.,EPARTMENT O! JUSTICE, repre*e%te b) Se'ret(r) Le$/( M. e L$m(, JOINT OJCOMELEC PRELIMINARY INESTIGATION COMMITTEE, SENATOR A7UILINO M. PIMENTELIII, (% OJCOMELEC !ACT !INING TEAM, Respondents.

D E C ! " N

PERALTA, J.:

#he Court is vested $ith the constitutional %andate to resolve &usticiable controversies b' appl'in(the rule of la$ $ith due deference to the ri(ht to due process, irrespective of the standin( in societ'of the parties involved. t is an assurance that in this &urisdiction, the $heels of &ustice turnuni%peded b' public opinion or cla%or, but onl' for the ulti%ate end of (ivin( each and ever'%e%ber of societ' his &ust due $ithout distinction.



Before the Court are three )*+ consolidated petitions and supple%ental petitions for Certiorari andProhibition under Rule of the Rules of Court filed b' ose Mi(uel #. Arro'o )Mi/e Arro'o+ in 0.R.No. 122345, Ben&a%in !. Abalos, !r. )Abalos+ in 0.R. No. 12234 and 0loria Macapa(al

Arro'o )0MA+ in 0.R. No. 122114 assailin( the follo$in(6 )1+ Co%%ission on Elections )Co%elec+Resolution No. 25 7n the Matter of the Co%%ission on Elections and Depart%ent of ustice oint

nvesti(ation on the Alle(ed Election "ffenses Co%%itted durin( the 5338 and 5339 ElectionsPursuant to :a$71 dated Au(ust 5, 5311; )5+ oint "rder No. 331-5311 )oint "rder+ 7Creatin( andConstitutin( a oint D"-Co%elec Preli%inar' nvesti(ation Co%%ittee <oint Co%%ittee= and >act->indin( #ea% on the 5338 and 5339 National Elections Electoral >raud and

Manipulation Cases75 dated Au(ust 1, 5311; )*+ Rules of Procedure on the Conduct of Preli%inar'nvesti(ation on the Alle(ed Election >raud in the 5338 and 5339 National Elections )ointCo%%ittee Rules of Procedure+* dated Au(ust 5*, 5311; and )8+ nitial Report of the >act->indin(#ea% dated "ctober 53, 5311.8 #he consolidated petitions and supple%ental petitions li/e$ise assailthe validit' of the proceedin(s underta/en pursuant to the aforesaid issuances.

#he Antecedents

Actin( on the discover' of alle(ed ne$ evidence and the surfacin( of ne$ $itnesses indicatin( theoccurrence of %assive electoral fraud and %anipulation of election results in the 5338 and 5339National Elections, on Au(ust 5, 5311, the Co%elec issued Resolution No. 25 approvin( thecreation of a co%%ittee &ointl' $ith the Depart%ent of ustice )D"+, $hich shall conduct preli%inar'investi(ation on the alle(ed election offenses and ano%alies co%%itted durin( the 5338 and 5339elections.

"n Au(ust 8, 5311, the !ecretar' of ustice issued Depart%ent "rder No. 83 na%in( three )*+ ofits prosecutors to the oint Co%%ittee.

"n Au(ust 1, 5311, the Co%elec and the D" issued oint "rder No. 331-5311 creatin( and

constitutin( a oint Co%%ittee and >act->indin( #ea% on the 5338 and 5339 National Electionselectoral fraud and %anipulation cases. #he oint Co%%ittee and the >act->indin( #ea% areco%posed of officials fro% the D" and the Co%elec. !ection 5 of the oint "rder la's do$n the%andate of the oint Co%%ittee, to $it6

!ection 5. Mandate. ? #he Co%%ittee shall conduct the necessar' preli%inar' investi(ation on thebasis of the evidence (athered and the char(es reco%%ended b' the >act->indin( #ea% createdand referred to in !ection 8 hereof. Resolutions findin( probable cause for election offenses, definedand penali@ed under the "%nibus Election Code and other election la$s shall be approved b' theCo%elec in accordance $ith the Co%elec Rules of Procedure. >or other offenses, or those notcovered b' the "%nibus Election Code and other election la$s, the correspondin( cri%inalinfor%ation %a' be filed directl' $ith the appropriate courts.9

#he >act->indin( #ea%,4 on the other hand, $as created for the purpose of (atherin( real,docu%entar', and testi%onial evidence $hich can be utili@ed in the preli%inar' investi(ation to beconducted b' the oint Co%%ittee. ts specific duties and functions as enu%erated in !ection 8 ofthe oint "rder are as follo$s6

a+ 0ather and docu%ent reports, intelli(ence infor%ation, and investi(ative leads fro% officialas $ell as unofficial sources and infor%ants;

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_199082_2012.html#fnt1




















b+ Conduct intervie$s, record testi%onies, ta/e affidavits of $itnesses, and collate %aterialand relevant docu%entar' evidence, such as, but not li%ited to, election docu%ents used inthe 5338 and 5339 national elections. >or securit' reasons, or to protect the identities ofinfor%ants, the >act->indin( #ea% %a' conduct intervie$s or docu%ent testi%oniesdiscreetl';

c+ Assess and evaluate affidavits alread' executed and other docu%entar' evidencesub%itted or %a' be sub%itted to the >act->indin( #ea% andor Co%%ittee;

d+ dentif' the offenders, their offenses and the %anner of their co%%ission, individuall' or inconspirac', and the provisions of election and (eneral cri%inal la$s violated, establishevidence for individual cri%inal and ad%inistrative liabilit' and prosecution, and prepare thenecessar' docu%entation, such as co%plaints and char(e sheets for the initiation ofpreli%inar' investi(ation proceedin(s a(ainst said individuals to be conducted b' theCo%%ittee;

e+ Re(ularl' sub%it to the Co%%ittee, the !ecretar' of ustice and the Chair%an of theCo%elec periodic reports and reco%%endations, supported b' real, testi%onial and

docu%entar' evidence, $hich %a' then serve as the Co%%ittees basis for i%%ediatel'co%%encin( appropriate preli%inar' investi(ation proceedin(s, as provided under !ection of this oint "rder; and

f+ pon the ter%ination of its investi(ation, %a/e a full and final report to the Co%%ittee, the!ecretar' of ustice, and the Chair%an of the Co%elec.2

Pursuant to !ection 913 of the oint "rder, on Au(ust 5*, 5311, the oint Co%%ittee pro%ul(ated itsRules of Procedure.

#he %e%bers of the >act->indin( #ea% unani%ousl' a(reed that the sub&ect of the nitial Report$ould be the electoral fraud and %anipulation of election results alle(edl' co%%itted durin( the Ma'

18, 5339 elections. #hus, in its nitial Report

11

dated "ctober 53, 5311, the >act->indin( #ea%concluded that %anipulation of the results in the Ma' 18, 5339 senatorial elections in the provincesof North and !outh Cotabato and Ma(uindanao $ere indeed perpetrated.15 #he >act->indin( #ea%reco%%ended that petitioner Abalos and ten )13+ others1* be sub&ected to preli%inar' investi(ationfor electoral sabota(e for conspirin( to %anipulate the election results in North and !outh Cotabato.#$ent'-six )5+18 persons, includin( petitioners 0MA and Abalos, $ere li/e$ise reco%%ended forpreli%inar' investi(ation for electoral sabota(e for %anipulatin( the election results inMa(uindanao.1 !everal persons $ere also reco%%ended to be char(ed ad%inistrativel', $hileothers,1 includin( petitioner Mi/e Arro'o, $ere reco%%ended to be sub&ected to furtherinvesti(ation.19 #he case resultin( fro% the investi(ation of the >act->indin( #ea% $as doc/eted asD"-Co%elec Case No. 331-5311.

Mean$hile, on "ctober 19, 5311, !enator Auilino Pi%entel )!enator Pi%entel+ filed a Co%plaint-

Affidavit14 for Electoral !abota(e a(ainst petitioners and t$elve others12 and several ohn Does andane Does. #he case $as doc/eted as D"-Co%elec Case No. 335-5311.

"n "ctober 58, 5311, the oint Co%%ittee issued t$o subpoenas a(ainst petitioners in D"-Co%elec Case Nos. 331-5311 and 335-5311.53 "n Nove%ber *, 5311, petitioners, throu(h counsel,appeared before the oint Co%%ittee.51"n that preli%inar' hearin(, the oint Co%%itteeconsolidated the t$o D"-Co%elec cases. Respondents therein $ere li/e$ise ordered to sub%ittheir Counter-Affidavits b' Nove%ber 18, 5311.55



































#hereafter, petitioners filed before the Court separate Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition $ithPra'er for the ssuance of a #e%porar' Restrainin( "rder )#R"+ andor rit of Preli%inar'n&unction assailin( the creation of the oint Panel.5* #he petitions $ere eventuall' consolidated.

"n Nove%ber 18, 5311, petitioner Mi/e Arro'o filed a Motion to Defer Proceedin(s58 before the ointCo%%ittee, in vie$ of the pendenc' of his petition before the Court. "n the sa%e da', petitioner

0MA filed before the oint Co%%ittee an "%nibus Motion Ad Cautela%5 to reuire !enatorPi%entel to furnish her $ith docu%ents referred to in his co%plaint-affidavit and for the production ofelection docu%ents as basis for the char(e of electoral sabota(e. 0MA contended that for the cri%eof electoral sabota(e to be established, there is a need to present election docu%ents alle(edl'ta%pered $hich resulted in the increase or decrease in the nu%ber of votes of local and nationalcandidates.5 0MA pra'ed that she be allo$ed to file her counter-affidavit $ithin ten )13+ da's fro%receipt of the reuested docu%ents.59 Petitioner Abalos, for his part, filed a Motion to !uspendProceedin(s )Ex Abundante Ad Cautela%+,54 in vie$ of the pendenc' of his petition brou(ht beforethe Court.

n an "rder 52 dated Nove%ber 1, 5311, the oint Co%%ittee denied the aforesaid %otions ofpetitioners. 0MA subseuentl' filed a %otion for reconsideration.*3

"n Nove%ber 1, 5311, the oint Co%%ittee pro%ul(ated a oint Resolution $hich $as laterindorsed to the Co%elec.*1 "n Nove%ber 14, 5311, after conductin( a special session, the Co%elecen banc issued a Resolution*5approvin( and adoptin( the oint Resolution sub&ect to %odifications.#he dispositive portion of the Co%elec Resolution reads6

FERE>"RE, pre%ises considered, the Resolution of the oint D"-C"ME:EC Preli%inar'nvesti(ation Co%%ittee in D"-C"ME:EC Case No. 331-5311 and D"-C"ME:EC Case No. 335-5311, upon the reco%%endation of the C"ME:ECs o$n representatives in the Co%%ittee, ishereb' APPR"GED and AD"P#ED, sub&ect to the follo$in( M"D>CA#"N!6

1. #hat infor%ations for the cri%e of E:EC#"RA: !AB"#A0E under !ection 85 )b+ of R.A.2*2, a%endin( !ection 59 )b+ of R.A. 8, be filed a(ainst 0:"RA MACAPA0A:- ARR"H", BENAMN ABA:"!, !R., :N#AN0 F. BED":, DA# ANDA: AMPA#AN, !R.and PE#ER REHE!;

5. #hat the char(es a(ainst MCFAE: C. ABA!, NC"DEM" >ERRER, REBEN BA!A",AME PAI and N"RE J. NA! be sub&ected to further investi(ation;

*. #hat the char(es a(ainst "!E M0E: #. ARR"H", B"N0 !ERRAN", A:BER#" A0RA, ANDRE B"N #A0M, 0ABBH C:AD", R"MH DAHDAH, EREMH AGER,"FN D"E a./.a B#CF, be D!M!!ED for insufficienc' of evidence to establish probablecause;

8. #hat the reco%%endation that E!#E:#A B. "RBA!E, E:IA A. 0A!MN, E:!A I.

A#NEN, !A:A" !. AMBA, MA0!AH!AH B. M"FAMAD, !A:"N0A J. EDIE:A, RA0AFD. AHNAN, !!AN . CANANBAN, R!!AM F. MABAN0, A!NC"N C"RAI"N P.RENED", NENA A. A:D, MA. !!AN :. A:BAN", R"FADA #. JFA:D, ARA M. CA",EEFAN !. NR, A:CE A. :M, N"REAN P. FAN0JA:, CFR!#NA R"AN M. DA:"PE,and MACEDA :. AB" be ad%inistrativel' char(ed be sub&ected to further revie$ b' thisCo%%ission to deter%ine the appropriate char(es that %a' be filed a(ainst the%;

. #hat the findin(s of lac/ of probable cause a(ainst ::AN !. !AN-RADAM and H"0E0. MAR#RIAR be REEC#ED b' reason of the pendenc' of their respective cases before



























the Re(ional #rial Court of Pasa' )Branch 118+ and this Co%%ission for the sa%e offenseunder consideration.

n the hi(her interest of &ustice and b' reason of %anifest atte%pts to frustrate the (overn%ents ri(htto prosecute and to obtain speed' disposition of the present case pendin( before the Co%%ission,the :a$ Depart%ent andor an' C"ME:EC le(al officers as %a' be authori@ed b' this Co%%ission

is hereb' "RDERED to MMEDA#E:H PREPARE and >:E the necessar' nfor%ations before theappropriate courts

!" "RDERED.** )E%phasis supplied.+

"n even date, pursuant to the above Resolution, the Co%elecs :a$ Depart%ent filed $ith theRe(ional #rial Court )R#C+, Pasa' Cit', an nfor%ation a(ainst petitioner 0MA, 0overnor Andal A%patuan, !r., and Att'. :intan( F. Bedol, for violation of !ection 85 )b+)*+ of Republic Act )R.A.+ No.2*2, a%endin( !ection 59 )b+ of R.A. No. 8, doc/eted as Cri%inal Case No. RP!H-11-388*5-CR.*8 #he case $as raffled to Branch 115 and the correspondin( arrant of Arrest $as issued $hich$as served on 0MA on the sa%e da'.*

"n Nove%ber 14, 5311, petitioner 0MA filed $ith the R#C an r(ent "%nibus Motion AdCautela%* $ith leave to allo$ the oint Co%%ittee to resolve the %otion for reconsideration filed b'0MA, to defer issuance of a $arrant of arrest and a Fold Departure "rder, and to proceed to &udicialdeter%ination of probable cause. !he, li/e$ise, filed $ith the Co%elec a Motion to Gacate AdCautela%*9 pra'in( that its Resolution be vacated for bein( null and void. #he R#C nonethelessissued a $arrant for her arrest $hich $as dul' served. 0MA thereafter filed a Motion for Bail $hich$as (ranted.

ssues

n 0.R. No. 122345, petitioner Arro'o relies on the follo$in( (rounds6

A. #FE CREA#"N "> #FE "N# C"MM##EE GA #FE "N# "RDER ! A# AR #F#FE DE PR"CE!! AND EKA: PR"#EC#"N C:A!E "> #FE C"N!###"N,FAGN0 BEEN CREA#ED #F #FE !":E END N GE "> NGE!#0A#N0 ANDPR"!EC#N0 CER#AN PER!"N! AND NCDEN#! "N:H, !PEC>CA::H #F"!ENG":GN0 #FE 5338 AND 5339 E:EC#"N! #" #FE ELC:!"N "> "#FER!, NG":A#"N "> #FE D"C#RNE N BRA"0" G. #R#F C"MM!!"N ANDC"MPAN"N CA!E.

B. N" :A "R R:E A#F"RIE! #FE "N# C"MM##EE #" C"NDC#PRE:MNARH NGE!#0A#"N.

C. #FE CREA#"N "> #FE "N# C"MM##EE, FCF >!E! #FE C"MM!!"N "NE:EC#"N! - A C"N!###"NA::H NDEPENDEN# B"DH - #F #FE DEPAR#MEN#"> !#CE ? A P":#CA: A0EN# "> #FE ELEC#GE ? DEM":!FE! #FENDEPENDENCE "> #FE C"MM!!"N "N E:EC#"N! A! PR"GDED N AR#C:EL)A+, !EC#"N! 1 AND 5 AND L)C+ "> #FE C"N!###"N.

D. N GE "> #FE NMER"! AND PER!!#EN# PB:C PR"N"NCEMEN#! ">#FE PRE!DEN#, F! !P"JE!PER!"N!, #FE FEAD! "> #FE D" AND #FEC"ME:EC, AND MEMBER! "> #FE "N# C"MM##EE #FA# CA!E! !F":D BE>:ED A0AN!# PE##"NER AND F! >AM:H AND A::E0ED A!!"CA#E! BH #FE















END "> 5311, #FE PR"CEEDN0! #FERE"> !F":D BE EN"NED >"R BEN0PER!EC#"RH, PR!AN# #" A::AD" G. D"JN" AND RE:A#ED CA!E!.

E. #FE CREA#"N AND C"N!###"N "> #FE "N# C"MM##EE #RAMP:E! P"NPE##"NER! R0F# #" A >AR PR"CEEDN0 BH AN NDEPENDEN# AND MPAR#A:#RBNA:.

>. #FE C"ME:EC, AND !B!EKEN#:H, #FE R#C "> PA!AH C#H, FAGE A!!MEDR!DC#"N "GER #FE !BEC# MA##ER !"0F# #" BE NGE!#0A#ED BH #FE"N# C"MM##EE, #" #FE ELC:!"N "> ANH B"DH, NC:DN0 #FE "N#C"MM##EE.*4

n 0.R. No. 12234, petitioner Abalos raises the follo$in( issues6

.

D"E! "N# "RDER N". 331-5311, CREA#N0 #FE "N# D"-C"ME:EC >AC#->NDN0 #EAM AND PRE:MNARH NGE!#0A#"N C"MM##EE G":A#E

PE##"NER! C"N!###"NA: R0F# #" EKA: PR"#EC#"N "> #FE :A

.

DD #FE C"NDC# AND PR"CEEDN0! "> #FE "N# D"-C"ME:EC >AC#->NDN0#EAM AND PRE:MNARH NGE!#0A#"N C"MM##EE G":A#E PE##"NER!C"N!###"NA: R0F# #" DE PR"CE!! "> :A

.

DD #FE D" AND C"ME:EC G":A#E #FE PRNCP:E "> !EPARA#"N "> P"ER!BH CREA#N0 #FE "N# D"-C"ME:EC >AC#->NDN0 #EAM AND PRE:MNARH

NGE!#0A#"N C"MM##EE FCF ENCR"ACFED P"N #FE P"ER! "> #FE:E0!:A#RE AND #FE RE0"NA: #RA: C"R#

G.

D"E! #FE "N# D"-C"ME:EC >AC#->NDN0 #EAM AND PRE:MNARHNGE!#0A#"N C"MM##EE FAGE #FE P"ER AND :E0A: A#F"R#H #"C"NDC# A PRE:MNARH NGE!#0A#"N "> #FE !AME E:EC#"RA: !AB"#A0ECA!E! FCF #FE C"ME:EC FAD A:READH #AJEN C"0NIANCE ">*2

n 0.R. No. 122114, petitioner 0MA anchors her petition on the follo$in( (rounds6

. #FE ELEC#GE DEPAR#MEN#, #FR"0F #FE D", "!#EN!B:H AC#N07"N#:H7 #F #FE C"ME:EC, FA! AC#ED BEH"ND #FE :M#! "> #FEC"N!###"N, N #FA# # FA! C"MPR"M!ED #FE NDEPENDENCE "> #FEC"ME:EC.

. #FE C"ME:EC FA! E>>EC#GE:H ABDCA#ED #! C"N!###"NA: MANDA#E7#" NGE!#0A#E AND, FERE APPR"PRA#E, PR"!EC#E CA!E! "> G":A#"N!"> E:EC#"N :A!, NC:DN0 AC#! "R "M!!"N! C"N!###N0 E:EC#"N>RAD!, ">>EN!E!, AND MA:PRAC#CE!7 )AR#C:E L-C, !EC#"N 5, 1249







C"N!###"N "> #FE REPB:C "> #FE PF:PPNE!+ N >AG"R "> #FEELEC#GE DEPAR#MEN#, AC#N0 #FR"0F RE!P"NDEN# !#CE !ECRE#ARHDE :MA.

. D"-C"ME:EC "N# "RDER N". 331-5311 AND #FE "N# C"MM##EE R:E!FAGE N"# BEEN PB:!FED PR!AN# #" #AADA G. #GERA, 0.R. No. :-*21 )52

DECEMBER 124+. A>#ER A::, A! #FE F"N"RAB:E C"R# :JE!E DEC:ARED NREPB:C G. P:PNA! !FE:: PE#R":EM C"RP"RA#"N, 0.R. No. 19*214 )34 APR: 5334+, )!C+83

e deferred the resolution of petitioners Motion for the ssuance of a #R" and, instead, reuired therespondents to co%%ent on the petitions.81

e li/e$ise scheduled the consolidated cases for oral ar(u%ent for $hich the parties $ere directedto li%it their respective discussions to the follo$in( issues6

. hether or not oint "rder No. 331-5311 7Creatin( and Constitutin( a oint D"-C"ME:ECPreli%inar' nvesti(ation Co%%ittee and >act->indin( #ea% on the 5338 and 5339 National

Elections Electoral >raud and Manipulation Cases7 is constitutional in li(ht of the follo$in(6

A. #he due process clause of the 1249 Constitution

B. #he eual protection clause of the 1249 Constitution

C. #he principle of separation of po$ers

D. #he independence of the C"ME:EC as a constitutional bod'

. hether or not the C"ME:EC has &urisdiction under the la$ to conduct preli%inar' investi(ation &ointl' $ith the D".

A. hether or not due process $as observed b' the oint D"-C"ME:EC >act->indin( #ea% andPreli%inar' nvesti(ation Co%%ittee, and the C"ME:EC in the conduct of the preli%inar'investi(ation and approval of the oint Panels Resolution.85

#he Court, thereafter, reuired the parties to sub%it their respective Me%oranda.8*

#he Courts Rulin(

Procedural ssues

Respondents clai% that Mi/e Arro'os petition is %oot and that of 0MA is %oot and acade%ic. #he'

explain that the Mi/e Arro'o petition presents no actual controvers' that necessitates the exercise b'the Court of its po$er of &udicial revie$, considerin( that he $as not a%on( those indicted forelectoral sabota(e in the 5339 national elections as the Co%elec dis%issed the case a(ainst hi% forinsufficienc' of evidence.88 Anent the 5338 national elections, the >act->indin( #ea% is 'et toco%plete its investi(ation so Mi/e Arro'os apprehensions are %erel' speculative andanticipator'.8 As to the 0MA petition, respondents aver that an' &ud(%ent of the Court $ill have nopractical le(al effect because an nfor%ation has alread' been filed a(ainst her in Branch 115, R#Cof Pasa' Cit'.8 ith the filin( of the nfor%ation, the R#C has alread' acuired &urisdiction over thecase, includin( all issues relatin( to the constitutionalit' or le(alit' of her preli%inar'



















investi(ation.89 Respondents also clai% that the issues relatin( to the constitutionalit' and validit' ofthe conduct of the preli%inar' investi(ation of 0MA are best left to the trial court, considerin( that itinvolves uestions of fact.84 Respondents add that considerin( that the R#C has concurrent &urisdiction to deter%ine a constitutional issue, it $ill be practical for the Court to allo$ the R#C todeter%ine the constitutional issues in this case.82

e do not a(ree.

Mootness

t cannot be (ainsaid that for a court to exercise its po$er of ad&udication, there %ust be an actualcase or controvers', that is, one $hich involves a conflict of le(al ri(hts, an assertion of oppositele(al clai%s susceptible of &udicial resolution.3 #he case %ust not be %oot or acade%ic or based onextra-le(al or other si%ilar considerations not co(ni@able b' a court of &ustice.1

A case beco%es %oot and acade%ic $hen it ceases to present a &usticiable controvers' so that adeclaration on the issue $ould be of no practical use or value.5 Fo$ever, a case should not bedis%issed si%pl' because one of the issues raised therein had beco%e %oot and acade%ic b' the

onset of a supervenin( event, $hether intended or incidental, if there are other causes $hich need tobe resolved after trial.*

Fere, the consolidated cases are not rendered %oot and acade%ic b' the pro%ul(ation of the ointResolution b' the oint Co%%ittee and the approval thereof b' the Co%elec. t %ust be recalled thatthe %ain issues in the three petitions before us are the constitutionalit' and le(alit' of the creation ofthe oint Co%%ittee and the >act->indin( #ea% as $ell as the proceedin(s underta/en pursuantthereto. #he assailed oint "rder specificall' provides that the oint Co%%ittee $as created forpurposes of investi(atin( the alle(ed %assive electoral fraud durin( the 5338 and 5339 nationalelections. Fo$ever, in the >act->indin( #ea%s nitial Report, the tea% specificall' a(reed that thereport $ould focus on the irre(ularities durin( the 5339 elections. Also, in its Nove%ber 14, 5311Resolution, the Co%elec, $hile directin( the filin( of infor%ation a(ainst petitioners Abalos and0MA, ordered that further investi(ations be conducted a(ainst the other respondents therein. Apparentl', the >act->indin( #ea%s and oint

Co%%ittees respective %andates have not been fulfilled and the' are, therefore, bound to continuedischar(in( their duties set forth in the assailed oint "rder. Moreover, petitioners uestion thevalidit' of the proceedin(s underta/en b' the >act->indin( #ea% and the oint Co%%ittee leadin( tothe filin( of infor%ation, on constitutional (rounds. e are not, therefore, barred fro% decidin( on thepetitions si%pl' b' the occurrence of the supervenin( events of filin( an infor%ation and dis%issal of the char(es.

urisdiction over the validit' of theconduct of the preli%inar' investi(ation

#his is not the first ti%e that the Court is confronted $ith the issue of &urisdiction to conductpreli%inar' investi(ation and at the sa%e ti%e $ith the propriet' of the conduct of preli%inar'investi(ation. n Co&uan(co, r. v. Presidential Co%%ission on 0ood 0overn%ent )PC00+,8 theCourt resolved t$o issues, na%el'6 )1+ $hether or not the PC00 has the po$er to conduct apreli%inar' investi(ation of the anti-(raft and corruption cases filed b' the !olicitor 0eneral a(ainstEduardo Con&uan(co, r. and other respondents for the alle(ed %isuse of coconut lev' funds; and)5+ on the assu%ption that it has &urisdiction to conduct such a preli%inar' investi(ation, $hether ornot its conduct constitutes a violation of petitioners ri(ht to due process and eual protection of the





















la$. #he Court decided these issues not$ithstandin( the fact that nfor%ations had alread' beenfiled $ith the trial court.

n Allado v. Dio/no, in a petition for certiorari assailin( the propriet' of the issuance of a $arrant ofarrest, the Court could not i(nore the undue haste in the filin( of the infor%ation and the inordinateinterest of the (overn%ent in filin( the sa%e. #hus, this Court too/ ti%e to deter%ine $hether or not

there $as, indeed, probable cause to $arrant the filin( of infor%ation. #his, not$ithstandin( the factthat infor%ation had been filed and a $arrant of arrest had been issued. Petitioners therein ca%edirectl' to this Court and sou(ht relief to rectif' the in&ustice that the' suffered.

Fierarch' of courts

Neither can the petitions be dis%issed solel' because of violation of the principle of hierarch' ofcourts. #his principle reuires that recourse %ust first be %ade to the lo$er-ran/ed court exercisin(concurrent &urisdiction $ith a hi(her court.9 #he !upre%e Court has ori(inal &urisdiction overpetitions for certiorari, prohibition, %anda%us, uo $arranto, and habeas corpus. hile this &urisdiction is shared $ith the Court of Appeals and the R#C, a direct invocation of this Courts &urisdiction is allo$ed $hen there are special and i%portant reasons therefor, clearl' and especiall'

set out in the petition, as in the present case.4

n the consolidated petitions, petitioners invo/eexe%ption fro% the observance of the rule on hierarch' of courts in /eepin( $ith the Courts dut' todeter%ine $hether or not the other branches of (overn%ent have /ept the%selves $ithin the li%its of the Constitution and the la$s, and that the' have not abused the discretion (iven to the%.2

t is note$orth' that the consolidated petitions assail the constitutionalit' of issuances andresolutions of the D" and the Co%elec. #he (eneral rule is that this Court shall exercise onl'appellate &urisdiction over cases involvin( the constitutionalit' of a statute, treat' or re(ulation.

Fo$ever, such rule is sub&ect to exception, that is, in circu%stances $here the Court believes thatresolvin( the issue of constitutionalit' of a la$ or re(ulation at the first instance is of para%ounti%portance and i%%ediatel' affects the social, econo%ic, and %oral $ell-bein( of the people.3

#his case falls $ithin the exception. An expeditious resolution of the issues raised in the petitions isnecessar'. Besides, the Court has entertained a direct resort to the Court $ithout the reuisite%otion for reconsideration filed belo$ or $ithout exhaustion of ad%inistrative re%edies $here thereis an ur(ent necessit' for the resolution of the uestion and an' further dela' $ould pre&udice theinterests of the (overn%ent or of the petitioners and $hen there is an alle(ed violation of dueprocess, as in the present case.1 e appl' the sa%e relaxation of the Rules in the present caseand, thus, entertain direct resort to this Court.

!ubstantive ssuesBases for the Creation of the>act->indin( #ea% and oint Co%%ittee

!ection 5, Article L-C of the 1249 Constitution enu%erates the po$ers and functions of theCo%elec. Para(raph )+ thereof vests in the Co%elec the po$er to6

)+ >ile, upon a verified co%plaint, or on its o$n initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusionof voters; investi(ate and, $here appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election la$s,includin( acts or o%issions constitutin( election frauds, offenses, and %alpractices.



















#his $as an i%portant innovation introduced b' the 1249 Constitution, because the above-uotedprovision $as not in the 12* and 129* Constitutions.5

#he (rant to the Co%elec of the po$er to investi(ate and prosecute election offenses as an ad&unctto the enforce%ent and ad%inistration of all election la$s is intended to enable the Co%elec toeffectivel' insure to the people the free, orderl', and honest conduct of elections. #he failure of the

Co%elec to exercise this po$er could result in the frustration of the true $ill of the people and %a/ea %ere idle cere%on' of the sacred ri(ht and dut' of ever' ualified citi@en to vote.*

#he constitutional (rant of prosecutorial po$er in the Co%elec $as reflected in !ection 5 of BatasPa%bansa Bl(. 441, other$ise /no$n as the "%nibus Election Code, to $it6

!ection 5. Prosecution. #he Co%%ission shall, throu(h its dul' authori@ed le(al officers, have theexclusive po$er to conduct preli%inar' investi(ation of all election offenses punishable under thisCode, and to prosecute the sa%e. #he Co%%ission %a' avail of the assistance of other prosecutin(ar%s of the (overn%ent6 Provided, ho$ever, #hat in the event that the Co%%ission fails to act onan' co%plaint $ithin four %onths fro% his filin(, the co%plainant %a' file the co%plaint $ith theoffice of the fiscal <public prosecutor=, or $ith the Ministr' Depart%ent of ustice for proper

investi(ation and prosecution, if $arranted.

nder the above provision of la$, the po$er to conduct preli%inar' investi(ation is vestedexclusivel' $ith the Co%elec. #he latter, ho$ever, $as (iven b' the sa%e provision of la$ theauthorit' to avail itself of the assistance of other prosecutin( ar%s of the (overn%ent.8 #hus, under!ection 5, Rule *8 of the Co%elec Rules of Procedure, provincial and cit' prosecutors and theirassistants are (iven continuin( authorit' as deputies to conduct preli%inar' investi(ation ofco%plaints involvin( election offenses under election la$s and to prosecute the sa%e. #heco%plaints %a' be filed directl' $ith the% or %a' be indorsed to the% b' the petitioner or its dul'authori@ed representatives.

#hus, under the "%nibus Election Code, $hile the exclusive &urisdiction to conduct preli%inar'investi(ation had been lod(ed $ith the Co%elec, the prosecutors had been conductin( preli%inar'investi(ations pursuant to the continuin( dele(ated authorit' (iven b' the Co%elec. #he reason forthis dele(ation of authorit' has been explained in Co%%ission on Elections v. EspaOol69

#he deputation of the Provincial and Cit' Prosecutors is necessitated b' the need for pro%ptinvesti(ation and dispensation of election cases as an indispensable part of the tas/ of securin( fine,orderl', honest, peaceful and credible elections. Enfeebled b' lac/ of funds and the %a(nitude of its$or/load, the petitioner does not have a sufficient nu%ber of le(al officers to conduct suchinvesti(ation and to prosecute such cases.4

Moreover, as $e ac/no$led(ed in People v. Basilla,2 the pro%pt and fair investi(ation andprosecution of election offenses co%%itted before or in the course of nation$ide elections $ouldsi%pl' not be possible $ithout the assistance of provincial and cit' fiscals prosecutors and their

assistants and staff %e%bers, and of the state prosecutors of the D".93

!ection 5 of the "%nibus Election Code $as a%ended b' !ection 8* of R.A. No. 2*2,91 $hichreads6

!ection 8*. !ection 5 of Batas Pa%bansa Bl(. 441 is hereb' a%ended to read as follo$s6























!EC. 5. Prosecution. ? #he Co%%ission shall, throu(h its dul' authori@ed le(al officers, have thepo$er, concurrent $ith the other prosecutin( ar%s of the (overn%ent, to conduct preli%inar'investi(ation of all election offenses punishable under this Code, and to prosecute the sa%e.95

As clearl' set forth above, instead of a %ere dele(ated authorit', the other prosecutin( ar%s of the(overn%ent, such as the D", no$ exercise concurrent &urisdiction $ith the Co%elec to conduct

preli%inar' investi(ation of all election offenses and to prosecute the sa%e.

t is, therefore, not onl' the po$er but the dut' of both the Co%elec and the D" to perfor% an' actnecessar' to ensure the pro%pt and fair investi(ation and prosecution of election offenses. Pursuantto the above constitutional and statutor' provisions, and as $ill be explained further belo$, $e findno i%pedi%ent for the Co%elec and the D" to create the oint Co%%ittee and >act->indin( #ea%for the purpose of conductin( a thorou(h investi(ation of the alle(ed %assive electoral fraud and the%anipulation of election results in the 5338 and 5339 national elections relatin( in particular to thepresidential and senatorial elections.9*

Constitutionalit' of oint-"rder No. 331-5311

A. Eual Protection Clause

Petitioners clai% that the creation of the oint Co%%ittee and >act->indin( #ea% is in violation of theeual protection clause of the Constitution because its sole purpose is the investi(ation andprosecution of certain persons and incidents. #he' ar(ue that there is no substantial distinctionbet$een the alle(ations of %assive electoral fraud in 5338 and 5339, on the one hand, and previousand subseuent national elections, on the other hand; and no substantial distinction bet$eenpetitioners and the other persons or public officials $ho %i(ht have been involved in previouselection offenses. #he' insist that the oint Panel $as created to tar(et onl' the Arro'o Ad%inistration as $ell as public officials lin/ed to the Arro'o Ad%inistration. #o bolster their clai%,petitioners explain that oint "rder No. 331-5311 is si%ilar to Executive "rder No. 1 )creatin( thePhilippine #ruth Co%%ission+ $hich this Court had alread' nullified for bein(

violative of the eual protection clause.

Respondents, ho$ever, refute the above contentions and ar(ue that the $ide arra' of the possibleelection offenses and broad spectru% of individuals $ho %a' have co%%itted the%, if an',i%%ediatel' ne(ate the assertion that the assailed orders are ai%ed onl' at the officials of the Arro'o Ad%inistration.

e a(ree $ith the respondents.

#he eual protection clause is enshrined in !ection 1, Article of the Constitution $hich reads6

!ection 1. No person shall be deprived of life, libert', or propert' $ithout due process of la$, norshall an' person be denied the eual protection of the la$s.98

#he concept of eual protection has been laid do$n in Birao(o v. Philippine #ruth Co%%ission of531369

"ne of the basic principles on $hich this (overn%ent $as founded is that of the eualit' of ri(ht$hich is e%bodied in !ection 1, Article of the 1249 Constitution. #he eual protection of the la$sis e%braced in the concept of due process, as ever' unfair discri%ination offends the reuire%ents











of &ustice and fair pla'. t has been e%bodied in a separate clause, ho$ever, to provide for a %orespecific (uarant' a(ainst an' for% of undue favoritis% or hostilit' fro% the (overn%ent. Arbitrarinessin (eneral %a' be challen(ed on the basis of the due process clause. But if the particular actassailed parta/es of an un$arranted partialit' or pre&udice, the sharper $eapon to cut it do$n is theeual protection clause.

Accordin( to a lon( line of decisions, eual protection si%pl' reuires that all persons or thin(ssi%ilarl' situated should be treated ali/e, both as to ri(hts conferred and responsibilities i%posed. treuires public bodies and institutions to treat si%ilarl'-situated individuals in a si%ilar %anner. #hepurpose of the eual protection clause is to secure ever' person $ithin a states &urisdiction a(ainstintentional and arbitrar' discri%ination, $hether occasioned b' the express ter%s of a statute or b'its i%proper execution throu(h the states dul'-constituted authorities. n other $ords, the concept ofeual &ustice under the la$ reuires the state to (overn i%partiall', and it %a' not dra$ distinctionsbet$een individuals solel' on differences that are irrelevant to a le(iti%ate (overn%ental ob&ective.9

nli/e the %atter addressed b' the Courts rulin( in Birao(o v. Philippine #ruth Co%%ission of 5313,oint "rder No. 331-5311 cannot be nullified on the (round that it sin(les out the officials of the Arro'o Ad%inistration and, therefore, it infrin(es the eual protection clause. #he Philippine #ruth

Co%%ission of 5313 $as expressl' created for the purpose of investi(atin( alle(ed (raft andcorruption durin( the Arro'o Ad%inistration since Executive "rder No. 199 specificall' referred to the7previous ad%inistration7; $hile the oint Co%%ittee $as created for the purpose of conductin(preli%inar' investi(ation of election offenses durin( the 5338 and 5339 elections. hile 0MA andMi/e Arro'o $ere a%on( those sub&ected to preli%inar' investi(ation, not all respondents therein$ere lin/ed to 0MA as there $ere public officers $ho $ere investi(ated upon in connection $ith their acts in the perfor%ance of their official duties. Private individuals $ere also sub&ected to theinvesti(ation b' the oint Co%%ittee.

#he eual protection (uarantee exists to prevent undue favor or privile(e. t is intended to eli%inatediscri%ination and oppression based on ineualit'. Reco(ni@in( the existence of real differencesa%on( %en, it does not de%and absolute eualit'. t %erel' reuires that all persons under li/ecircu%stances and conditions shall be treated ali/e both as to privile(es conferred and liabilities

enforced.94

e once held that the "ffice of the "%buds%an is (ranted virtuall' plenar' investi(ator' po$ers b'the Constitution and b' la$ and thus %a', for ever' particular investi(ation, $hether co%%enced b'co%plaint or on its o$n initiative, decide ho$ best to pursue each investi(ation. !ince the "ffice ofthe "%buds%an is (ranted such latitude, its var'in( treat%ent of si%ilarl' situated investi(ationscannot b' itself be considered a violation of an' of the parties ri(hts to the eual protection of thela$s.92 #his sa%e doctrine should li/e$ise appl' in the present case.

#hus, as the constitutional bod' (ranted $ith the broad po$er of enforcin( and ad%inisterin( all la$sand re(ulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendu% andrecall,43 and tas/ed to ensure free, orderl', honest, peaceful, and credible elections,41 the Co%elec

has the authorit' to deter%ine ho$ best to perfor% such constitutional %andate. Pursuant to thisauthorit', the Co%elec issues various resolutions prior to ever' local or national elections settin(forth the (uidelines to be observed in the conduct of the elections. #his sho$s that ever' election isdistinct and reuires different (uidelines in order to ensure that the rules are updated to respond toexistin( circu%stances.

Moreover, as has been practiced in the past, co%plaints for violations of election la$s %a' be filedeither $ith the Co%elec or $ith the D". #he Co%elec %a' even initiate, %otu proprio, co%plaintsfor election offenses.45

















Pursuant to la$ and the Co%elecs o$n Rules, investi(ations %a' be conducted either b' theCo%elec itself throu(h its la$ depart%ent or throu(h the prosecutors of the D". #hese var'in(procedures and treat%ent do not, ho$ever, %ean that respondents are not treated ali/e. #hus,petitioners insistence of infrin(e%ent of their constitutional ri(ht to eual protection of the la$ is%isplaced.

B. Due Process

Petitioners clai% that the oint Panel does not possess the reuired cold neutralit' of an i%partial &ud(e because it is all at once the evidence-(atherer, prosecutor and &ud(e. #he' explain that sincethe >act->indin( #ea% has found probable cause to sub&ect the% to preli%inar' investi(ation, it isi%possible for the oint Co%%ittee to arrive at an opposite conclusion. Petitioners li/e$ise expressdoubts of an' possibilit' that the oint Co%%ittee $ill be fair and i%partial to the% as !ecretar' De:i%a and Chair%an Brillantes had repeatedl' expressed pre&ud(%ent a(ainst petitioners throu(htheir state%ents captured b' the %edia.

>or their part, respondents contend that petitioners failed to present proof that the President of thePhilippines, !ecretar' of ustice, and Chair%an of the Co%elec actuall' %ade the state%ents

alle(edl' pre&ud(in( their case and in the context in $hich the' interpreted the%. #he' li/e$isecontend that assu%in( that said state%ents $ere %ade, there $as no sho$in( that !ecretar' De:i%a had tried to intervene in the investi(ation to influence its outco%e nor $as it proven that theoint Co%%ittee itself had pre&ud(ed the case. :astl', the' point out that oint "rder No. 331-5311created t$o bodies, the >act->indin( #ea% and the oint Co%%ittee, $ith their respective %andates.Fence, the' cannot be considered as one.

e find for respondents.

t is settled that the conduct of preli%inar' investi(ation is, li/e court proceedin(s, sub&ect to thereuire%ents of both substantive and procedural due process.4* Preli%inar' investi(ation isconsidered as a &udicial proceedin( $herein the prosecutor or investi(atin( officer, b' the nature ofhis functions, acts as a uasi-&udicial officer .48 #he authorit' of a prosecutor or investi(atin( officerdul' e%po$ered to preside over or to conduct a preli%inar' investi(ation is no less than that of a%unicipal &ud(e or even an R#C ud(e.4 #hus, as e%phasi@ed b' the Court in :adlad v. Gelasco64

x x x e cannot e%phasi@e too stron(l' that prosecutors should not allo$, and should avoid, (ivin(the i%pression that their noble office is bein( used or prostituted, $ittin(l' or un$ittin(l', for politicalends, or other purposes alien to, or subversive of, the basic and funda%ental ob&ective of servin( theinterest of &ustice evenhandedl', $ithout fear or favor to an' and all liti(ants ali/e, $hether rich orpoor, $ea/ or stron(, po$erless or %i(ht'. "nl' b' strict adherence to the established procedure%a' publics perception of the i%partialit' of the prosecutor be enhanced.49

n this case, as correctl' pointed out b' respondents, there $as no sho$in( that the state%entsclai%ed to have pre&ud(ed the case a(ainst petitioners $ere %ade b' !ecretar' De :i%a and

Chair%an Brillantes or $ere in the pre&udicial context in $hich petitioners clai%ed the state%ents$ere %ade. A readin( of the state%ents alle(edl' %ade b' the% reveals that the' $ere &ustrespondin( to h'pothetical uestions in the event that probable cause $ould eventuall' be found b'the oint Co%%ittee.

More i%portantl', there $as no proof or even an alle(ation that the oint Co%%ittee itself, tas/ed toconduct the reuisite preli%inar' investi(ation a(ainst petitioners, %ade biased state%ents that$ould conve' to the public that the %e%bers $ere favorin( a particular part'. Neither did thepetitioners sho$ that the President of the Philippines, the !ecretar' of ustice or the Chair%an of the
















Co%elec intervened in the conduct of the preli%inar' investi(ation or exerted undue pressure ontheir subordinates to tailor their decision $ith their public declarations and adhere to a pre-deter%ined result.44 Moreover, insofar as the Co%elec is concerned, it %ust be e%phasi@ed that theconstitutional bod' is colle(ial. #he act of the head of a colle(ial bod' cannot be considered as thatof the entire bod' itself .42 n euatin( the alle(ed bias of the above-na%ed officials $ith that of theoint Co%%ittee, there $ould be no ar% of the (overn%ent credible enou(h to conduct a preli%inar'

investi(ation.23

t %ust also be e%phasi@ed that oint "rder No. 331-5311 created t$o bodies, na%el'6 )1+ the >act->indin( #ea% tas/ed to (ather real, docu%entar' and testi%onial evidence $hich can be utili@ed inthe preli%inar' investi(ation to be conducted b' the oint Co%%ittee; and )5+ the oint Co%%ittee%andated to conduct preli%inar' investi(ation. t is, therefore, inaccurate to sa' that there is onl'one bod' $hich acted as evidence-(atherer, prosecutor and &ud(e.

C. !eparation of po$ers

Petitioners clai% that the oint Panel is a ne$ public office as sho$n b' its co%position, the creationof its o$n Rules of Procedure, and the source of fundin( for its operation. t is their position that the

po$er of the D" to investi(ate the co%%ission of cri%es and the Co%elecs constitutional %andateto investi(ate and prosecute violations of election la$s do not include the po$er to create a ne$public office in the (uise of a &oint co%%ittee. #hus, in creatin( the oint Panel, the D" and theCo%elec encroached upon the po$er of the :e(islature to create public office.

Respondents dispute this and contend that the oint Co%%ittee and >act->indin( #ea% are not ne$public offices, but %erel' collaborations bet$een t$o existin( (overn%ent a(encies sharin(concurrent &urisdiction. #his is sho$n b' the fact that the %e%bers of the oint Panel are existin(officers of the D" and the Co%elec $ho exercise duties and functions that are alread' vested inthe%.

A(ain, $e a(ree $ith respondents.

As clearl' explained above, the Co%elec is (ranted the po$er to investi(ate, and $here appropriate,prosecute cases of election offenses. #his is necessar' in ensurin( free, orderl', honest, peacefuland credible elections. "n the other hand, the D" is %andated to ad%inister the cri%inal &ustices'ste% in accordance $ith the accepted processes thereof consistin( in the investi(ation of thecri%es, prosecution of offenders and ad%inistration of the correctional s'ste%.21 t is specificall'e%po$ered to 7investi(ate the co%%ission of cri%es, prosecute offenders and ad%inister theprobation and correction s'ste%.725 Also, the provincial or cit' prosecutors and their assistants, as$ell as the national and re(ional state prosecutors, are specificall' na%ed as the officers authori@edto conduct preli%inar' investi(ation.2* Recentl', the Co%elec, throu(h its dul' authori@ed le(aloffices, is (iven the po$er, concurrent $ith the other prosecutin( ar%s of the (overn%ent such asthe D", to conduct preli%inar' investi(ation of all election offenses.28

ndoubtedl', it is the Constitution, statutes, and the Rules of Court and not the assailed oint "rder$hich (ive the D" and the Co%elec the po$er to conduct preli%inar' investi(ation. No ne$ po$eris (iven to the% b' virtue of the assailed order. As to the %e%bers of the oint Co%%ittee and >act->indin( #ea%, the' perfor% such functions that the' alread' perfor% b' virtue of their currentpositions as prosecutors of the D" and le(al officers of the Co%elec. #hus, in no $a' can $econsider the oint Co%%ittee as a ne$ public office.

D. ndependence of the Co%elec




















Petitioners clai% that in creatin( the oint Panel, the Co%elec has effectivel' abdicated itsconstitutional %andate to investi(ate and, $here appropriate, to prosecute cases of violation ofelection la$s includin( acts or o%issions constitutin( election frauds, offenses, and %alpractices infavor of the Executive Depart%ent actin( throu(h the D" !ecretar'. nder the set- up, theCo%elec personnel is placed under the supervision and control of the D". #he chairperson is aD" official. #hus, the Co%elec has $illin(l' surrendered its independence to the D" and has

acceded to share its exercise of &ud(%ent and discretion $ith the Executive Branch.

e do not a(ree.

!ection 1,2 Article L-A of the 1249 Constitution expressl' describes all the ConstitutionalCo%%issions as independent. Althou(h essentiall' executive in nature, the' are not under thecontrol of the President of the Philippines in the dischar(e of their respective functions.2 #heConstitution envisions a trul' independent Co%elec co%%itted to ensure free, orderl', honest,peaceful, and credible elections and to serve as the (uardian of the peoples sacred ri(ht of suffra(e ? the citi@enr's vital $eapon in effectin( a peaceful chan(e of (overn%ent and in achievin( andpro%otin( political stabilit'.29

Prior to the a%end%ent of !ection 5 of the "%nibus Election Code, the Co%elec had theexclusive authorit' to investi(ate and prosecute election offenses. n the dischar(e of this exclusivepo$er, the Co%elec $as (iven the ri(ht to avail and, in fact, availed of the assistance of otherprosecutin( ar%s of the (overn%ent such as the prosecutors of the D". B' virtue of this continuin(authorit', the state prosecutors and the provincial or cit' prosecutors $ere authori@ed to receive theco%plaint for election offense and dele(ate the conduct of investi(ation to an' of their assistants.#he investi(atin( prosecutor, in turn, $ould %a/e a reco%%endation either to dis%iss the co%plaintor to file the infor%ation. #his reco%%endation is sub&ect to the approval of the state, provincial orcit' prosecutor, $ho hi%self %a' file the infor%ation $ith the proper court if he finds sufficient causeto do so, sub&ect, ho$ever, to the accuseds ri(ht to appeal to the Co%elec.24

Moreover, durin( the past national and local elections, the Co%elec issued Resolutions22 reuestin(the !ecretar' of ustice to assi(n prosecutors as %e%bers of !pecial #as/ >orces to assist the

Co%elec in the investi(ation and prosecution of election offenses. #hese !pecial #as/ >orces $erecreated because of the need for additional la$'ers to handle the investi(ation and prosecution ofelection offenses.

Clearl', the Co%elec reco(ni@es the need to dele(ate to the prosecutors the po$er to conductpreli%inar' investi(ation. "ther$ise, the pro%pt resolution of alle(ed election offenses $ill not beattained. #his dele(ation of po$er, other$ise /no$n as deputation, has lon( been reco(ni@ed and, infact, been utili@ed as an effective %eans of disposin( of various election offense cases. Apparentl',as %ere deputies, the prosecutors pla'ed a vital role in the conduct of preli%inar' investi(ation, inthe resolution of co%plaints filed before the%, and in the filin( of the infor%ations $ith the propercourt.

As pointed out b' the Court in Baran(a' Association for National Advance%ent and #ransparenc')BANA#+ Part'-:ist v. Co%%ission on Elections,133 the (rant of exclusive po$er to investi(ate andprosecute cases of election offenses to the Co%elec $as not b' virtue of the Constitution but b' the"%nibus Election Code $hich $as eventuall' a%ended b' !ection 8* of R.A. 2*2. #hus, the D"no$ conducts preli%inar' investi(ation of election offenses concurrentl' $ith the Co%elec and nolon(er as %ere deputies. f the prosecutors had been allo$ed to conduct preli%inar' investi(ationand file the necessar' infor%ation b' virtue onl' of a dele(ated authorit', the' no$ have better(rounds to perfor% such function b' virtue of the statutor' (rant of authorit'. f deputation $as &ustified because of lac/ of funds and le(al officers to ensure pro%pt and fair investi(ation and

















prosecution of election offenses, the sa%e &ustification should be cited to &ustif' the (rant to the other prosecutin( ar%s of the (overn%ent of such concurrent &urisdiction.

n vie$ of the fore(oin( disuisition, $e find no i%pedi%ent for the creation of a oint Co%%ittee.hile the co%position of the oint Co%%ittee and >act->indin( #ea% is do%inated b' D" officials,it does not necessaril' follo$ that the Co%elec is inferior. nder the oint "rder, resolutions of the

oint Co%%ittee findin( probable cause for election offenses shall still be approved b' the Co%elecin accordance $ith the Co%elec Rules of Procedure. #his sho$s that the Co%elec, thou(h it acts &ointl' $ith the D", re%ains in control of the proceedin(s. n no $a' can $e sa' that the Co%elechas thereb' abdicated its independence to the executive depart%ent.

#he text and intent of the constitutional provision (rantin( the Co%elec the authorit' to investi(ateand prosecute election offenses is to (ive the Co%elec all the necessar' and incidental po$ers for itto achieve the ob&ective of holdin( free, orderl', honest, peaceful, and credible elections.131 #heCo%elec should be allo$ed considerable latitude in devisin( %eans and %ethods that $ill insure theacco%plish%ent of the (reat ob&ective for $hich it $as created.135e %a' not a(ree full' $ith itschoice of %eans, but unless these are clearl' ille(al or constitute (ross abuse of discretion, thisCourt should not interfere.13* #hus, Co%elec Resolution No. 25, approvin( the creation of the oint

Co%%ittee and >act->indin( #ea%, should be vie$ed not as an abdication of the constitutionalbod's independence but as a %eans to fulfill its dut' of ensurin( the pro%pt investi(ation andprosecution of election offenses as an ad&unct of its %andate of ensurin( a free, orderl', honest,peaceful and credible elections.

Althou(h it belon(s to the executive depart%ent, as the a(enc' tas/ed to investi(ate cri%es,prosecute offenders, and ad%inister the correctional s'ste%, the D" is li/e$ise not barred fro%actin( &ointl' $ith the Co%elec. t %ust be e%phasi@ed that the D" and the Co%elec exerciseconcurrent &urisdiction in conductin( preli%inar' investi(ation of election offenses. #he doctrine ofconcurrent &urisdiction %eans eual &urisdiction to deal $ith the sa%e sub&ect %atter.138 Contrar' tothe contention of the petitioners, there is no prohibition on si%ultaneous exercise of po$er bet$eent$o coordinate bodies. hat is prohibited is the situation $here one files a co%plaint a(ainst arespondent initiall' $ith one office )such as the Co%elec+ for preli%inar' investi(ation $hich $as

i%%ediatel' acted upon b' said office and the re-filin( of substantiall' the sa%e co%plaint $ithanother office )such as the D"+. #he subseuent assu%ption of &urisdiction b' the second officeover the cases filed $ill not be allo$ed. ndeed, it is a settled rule that the bod' or a(enc' that firstta/es co(ni@ance of the co%plaint shall exercise &urisdiction to the exclusion of the others.13 Asco(entl' held b' the Court in Depart%ent of ustice v. Fon. :i$a(613

#o allo$ the sa%e co%plaint to be filed successivel' before t$o or %ore investi(ative bodies $ouldpro%ote %ultiplicit' of proceedin(s. t $ould also cause undue difficulties to the respondent $ho$ould have to appear and defend his position before ever' a(enc' or bod' $here the sa%eco%plaint $as filed. #his $ould lead hapless liti(ants at a loss as to $here to appear and plead theircause or defense.

#here is 'et another undesirable conseuence. #here is the distinct possibilit' that the t$o bodiesexercisin( &urisdiction at the sa%e ti%e $ould co%e up $ith conflictin( resolutions re(ardin( the (uiltof the respondents.

>inall', the second investi(ation $ould entail an unnecessar' expenditure of public funds, and theuse of valuable and li%ited resources of 0overn%ent, in a duplication of proceedin(s alread' started$ith the "%buds%an.139



















None of these proble%s $ould li/el' arise in the present case. #he Co%elec and the D"the%selves a(reed that the' $ould exercise their concurrent &urisdiction &ointl'. Althou(h thepreli%inar' investi(ation $as conducted on the basis of t$o co%plaints ? the initial report of the>act->indin( #ea% and the co%plaint of !enator Pi%entel ? both co%plaints $ere filed $ith the ointCo%%ittee. Conseuentl', the co%plaints $ere filed $ith and the preli%inar' investi(ation $asconducted b' onl' one investi(ative bod'. #hus, $e find no reason to disallo$ the exercise of

concurrent &urisdiction &ointl' b' those (iven such authorit'. #his is especiall' true in this case (iventhe %a(nitude of the cri%es alle(edl' co%%itted b' petitioners. #he &oint preli%inar' investi(ationalso serves to %axi%i@e the resources and %anpo$er of both the Co%elec and the D" for thepro%pt disposition of the cases.

Citin( the principle of concurrent &urisdiction, petitioners insist that the investi(ation conducted b' theCo%elec involvin( Rada% and Martiri@ar bars the creation of the oint Co%%ittee for purposes ofconductin( another preli%inar' investi(ation. n short, the' clai% that the exercise b' the Co%elec of its &urisdiction to investi(ate excludes other bodies such as the D" and the oint Co%%ittee fro%ta/in( co(ni@ance of the case. Petitioners add that the investi(ation should have been conductedalso b' the Co%elec as the 5339 cases of Rada% and Martiri@ar include several ohn Does andane Does.

e do not a(ree.

hile the Co%elec conducted the preli%inar' investi(ation a(ainst Rada%, Martiri@ar and otherunidentified persons, it onl' pertains to election offenses alle(edl' co%%itted in North and !outhCotabato. "n the other hand, the preli%inar' investi(ation conducted b' the oint Co%%ittee)involvin( 0MA+ pertains to election offenses supposedl' co%%itted in Ma(uindanao. Morei%portantl', considerin( the broad po$er of the Co%elec to choose the %eans of fulfillin( its dut' ofensurin( the pro%pt investi(ation and prosecution of election offenses as discussed earlier, there isnothin( $ron( if the Co%elec chooses to $or/ &ointl' $ith the D" in the conduct of saidinvesti(ation. #o reiterate, in no $a' can $e consider this as an act abdicatin( the independence ofthe Co%elec.

Publication Reuire%ent

n the conduct of preli%inar' investi(ation, the D" is (overned b' the Rules of Court, $hile theCo%elec is (overned b' the 122* Co%elec Rules of Procedure. #here is, therefore, no need topro%ul(ate ne$ Rules as %a' be co%ple%entar' to the D" and Co%elec Rules.

As earlier discussed, considerin( that oint "rder No. 331-5311 onl' enables the Co%elec and theD" to exercise po$ers $hich are alread' vested in the% b' the Constitution and other existin(la$s, it need not be published for it to be valid and effective. A close exa%ination of the ointCo%%ittees Rules of Procedure, ho$ever, $ould sho$ that its provisions affect the public.!pecificall', the follo$in( provisions of the Rules either restrict the ri(hts of or provide re%edies tothe affected parties, to $it6 )1+ !ection 1 provides that 7the oint Co%%ittee $ill no lon(er entertain

co%plaints fro% the public as soon as the >act->indin( #ea% sub%its its final report, except for suchco%plaints involvin( offenses %entioned in the >act->indin( #ea%s >inal Report7; )5+ !ection 5states that 7the oint Co%%ittee shall not entertain a Motion to Dis%iss7; and )*+ !ection providesthat a Motion for Reconsideration %a' be availed of b' the a((rieved parties a(ainst the ointCo%%ittees Resolution. Conseuentl', publication of the Rules is necessar'.

#he publication reuire%ent covers not onl' statutes but ad%inistrative re(ulations and issuances,as clearl' outlined in #aOada v. #uvera6134 effectivit', $hich shall be(in fifteen da's after publicationunless a different effectivit' date is fixed b' the le(islature. Covered b' this rule are presidential







decrees and executive orders pro%ul(ated b' the President in the exercise of le(islative po$ers$henever the sa%e are validl' dele(ated b' the le(islature or, at present, directl' conferred b' theConstitution. Ad%inistrative rules and re(ulations %ust also be published if their purpose is toenforce or i%ple%ent existin( la$ pursuant also to a valid dele(ation. nterpretative re(ulations andthose %erel' internal in nature, that is, re(ulatin( onl' the personnel of the ad%inistrative a(enc'and not the public, need not be published. Neither is publication reuired of the so called letters of

instructions issued b' ad%inistrative superiors concernin( the rules or (uidelines to be follo$ed b'their subordinates in the perfor%ance of their duties.132

As opposed to Fonasan v. #he Panel of nvesti(atin( Prosecutors of the Depart%ent ofustice,113 $here the Court held that "MB-D" oint Circular No. 2-331 is onl' an internalarran(e%ent bet$een the D" and the "ffice of the "%buds%an outlinin( the authorit' andresponsibilities a%on( prosecutors of both offices in the conduct of preli%inar' investi(ation, theassailed oint Co%%ittees Rules of Procedure re(ulate not onl' the prosecutors of the D" and theCo%elec but also the conduct and ri(hts of persons, or the public in (eneral. #he publicationreuire%ent should, therefore, not be i(nored.

Publication is a necessar' co%ponent of procedural due process to (ive as $ide publicit' as

possible so that all persons havin( an interest in the proceedin(s %a' be notified thereof.

111

#hereuire%ent of publication is intended to satisf' the basic reuire%ents of due process. t isi%perative for it $ill be the hei(ht of in&ustice to punish or other$ise burden a citi@en for thetrans(ressions of a la$ or rule of $hich he had no notice $hatsoever.115

Nevertheless, even if the oint Co%%ittees Rules of Procedure is ineffective for lac/ of publication,the proceedin(s underta/en b' the oint Co%%ittee are not rendered null and void for that reason,because the preli%inar' investi(ation $as conducted b' the oint Co%%ittee pursuant to theprocedures laid do$n in Rule 115 of the Rules on Cri%inal Procedure and the 122* Co%elec Rulesof Procedure.

Galidit' of the Conduct of Preli%inar' nvesti(ation

n her !upple%ental Petition,11* 0MA outlines the incidents that too/ place after the filin( of theinstant petition, specificall' the issuance b' the oint Co%%ittee of the oint Resolution, the approval$ith %odification of such resolution b' the Co%elec and the filin( of infor%ation and the issuance ofa $arrant of arrest b' the R#C. ith these supervenin( events, 0MA further assails the validit' ofthe proceedin(s that too/ place based on the follo$in( additional (rounds6 )1+ the undue andunbelievable haste attendin( the oint Co%%ittees conduct of the preli%inar' investi(ation, itsresolution of the case, and its referral to and approval b' the Co%elec, ta/en in con&unction $ith thestate%ents fro% the "ffice of the President, de%onstrate a deliberate and reprehensible pattern ofabuse of inalienable ri(hts and a blatant disre(ard of the envisioned inte(rit' and independence ofthe Co%elec; )5+ as it stands, the creation of the oint Co%%ittee $as for the sin(ular purpose ofrailroadin( the proceedin(s in the prosecution of the petitioner and in fla(rant violation of her ri(ht to

due process and eual protection of the la$s; )*+ the proceedin(s of the oint Co%%ittee cannot beconsidered i%partial and fair, considerin( that respondents have acted as la$ enforcers, $hoconducted the cri%inal investi(ation, (athered evidence and thereafter ordered the filin( ofco%plaints, and at the sa%e ti%e authori@ed preli%inar' investi(ation based on the co%plaints the'caused to be filed; )8+ the Co%elec beca%e an instru%ent of oppression $hen it hastil' approvedthe resolution of the oint Co%%ittee even if t$o of its %e%bers $ere in no position to cast theirvotes as the' ad%itted to not havin( 'et read the volu%inous records of the cases; and )+ fla(rantand repeated violations of her ri(ht to due process at ever' sta(e of the proceedin(s de%onstrate adeliberate atte%pt to sin(le out petitioner throu(h the creation of the oint Co%%ittee.118

















n their !upple%ent to the Consolidated Co%%ent,11 respondents accuse petitioners of violatin( therule a(ainst foru% shoppin(. #he' contend that in filin( the !upple%ental Petition before the Court,the r(ent "%nibus Motion Ad Cautela% $ith the R#C, and the Motion to Gacate Ad Cautela% $iththe Co%elec, 0MA raises the co%%on issue of $hether or not the proceedin(s before the ointCo%%ittee and the Co%elec are null and void for violatin( the Constitution. Respondents li/e$iseclai% that the issues raised in the supple%ental petition are factual $hich is be'ond the po$er of this

Court to decide.

e cannot dis%iss the cases before us on the (round of foru% shoppin(.

>oru% shoppin( is the act of a part' a(ainst $ho% an adverse &ud(%ent has been rendered in oneforu%, of see/in( another and possibl' favorable opinion in another foru% other than b' appeal orthe special civil action of certiorari.11#here can also be foru% shoppin( $hen a part' institutes t$o or %ore suits in different courts, either si%ultaneousl' or successivel', in order to as/ the courts to ruleon the sa%e and related causes andor to (rant the sa%e or substantiall' the sa%e reliefs on thesupposition that one or the other court $ould %a/e a favorable disposition or increase a part'schances of obtainin( a favorable decision or action.119

ndeed, petitioner 0MA filed a !upple%ental Petition before the Court, an r(ent "%nibus Motion Ad Cautela% before the R#C, and a Motion to Gacate Ad Cautela% before the Co%elec,e%phasi@in( the unbelievable haste co%%itted b' the oint Co%%ittee and the Co%elec indisposin( of the cases before the%. Fo$ever, a plain readin( of the alle(ations in 0MAs %otionbefore the R#C $ould sho$ that 0MA raised the issue of undue haste in issuin( the oint Resolutiononl' in support of her pra'er for the trial court to hold in abe'ance the issuance of the $arrant ofarrest, considerin( that her %otion for reconsideration of the denial of her %otion to be furnishedcopies of docu%ents $as not 'et acted upon b' the oint Co%%ittee. f at all the constitutional issueof violation of due process $as raised, it $as %erel' incidental. More i%portantl', 0MA raised in her%otion $ith the R#C the findin( of probable cause as she sou(ht the &udicial deter%ination ofprobable cause $hich is not an issue in the petitions before us. 0MAs ulti%ate pra'er is actuall' forthe court to defer the issuance of the $arrant of arrest. Clearl', the reliefs sou(ht in the R#C aredifferent fro% the reliefs sou(ht in this case. #hus, there is no foru% shoppin(.

ith respect to the Motion to Gacate Ad Cautela% filed $ith the Co%elec, $hile the issues raisedtherein are substantiall' si%ilar to the issues in the supple%ental petition $hich, therefore, strictl'spea/in(, $arrants outri(ht dis%issal on the (round of foru% shoppin(, $e cannot do so in this casein li(ht of the due process issues raised b' 0MA.114 t is $orth' to note that the %ain issues in thepresent petitions are the constitutionalit' of the creation of the oint Panel and the validit' of theproceedin(s underta/en pursuant thereto for alle(ed violation of the constitutional ri(ht to dueprocess. n uestionin( the propriet' of the conduct of the preli%inar' investi(ation in her!upple%ental Petition, 0MA onl' raises her continuin( ob&ection to the exercise of &urisdiction of theoint Co%%ittee and the Co%elec. #here is, therefore, no i%pedi%ent for the Court to rule on thevalidit' of the conduct of preli%inar' investi(ation.

n ' v. "ffice of the "%buds%an,112

the Court explained the nature of preli%inar' investi(ation, to$it6

A preli%inar' investi(ation is held before an accused is placed on trial to secure the innocent a(ainsthast', %alicious, and oppressive prosecution; to protect hi% fro% an open and public accusation of acri%e, as $ell as fro% the trouble, expenses, and anxiet' of a public trial. t is also intended toprotect the state fro% havin( to conduct useless and expensive trials. hile the ri(ht is statutor'rather than constitutional, it is a co%ponent of due process in ad%inisterin( cri%inal &ustice. #he ri(htto have a preli%inar' investi(ation conducted before bein( bound for trial and before bein( exposed














to the ris/ of incarceration and penalt' is not a %ere for%al or technical ri(ht; it is a substantive ri(ht.#o den' the accuseds clai% to a preli%inar' investi(ation is to deprive hi% of the full %easure of hisri(ht to due process.153

A preli%inar' investi(ation is the crucial sieve in the cri%inal &ustice s'ste% $hich spells for anindividual the difference bet$een %onths if not 'ears of a(oni@in( trial and possibl' &ail ter%, on the

one hand, and peace of %ind and libert', on the other hand. #hus, $e have characteri@ed the ri(ht toa preli%inar' investi(ation as not a %ere for%al or technical ri(ht but a substantive one, for%in( partof due process in cri%inal &ustice.151

n a preli%inar' investi(ation, the Rules of Court (uarantee the petitioners basic due process ri(htssuch as the ri(ht to be furnished a cop' of the co%plaint, the affidavits, and other supportin(docu%ents, and the ri(ht to sub%it counter-affidavits, and other supportin( docu%ents in herdefense.155 Ad%ittedl', 0MA received the notice reuirin( her to sub%it her counter-affidavit. Het, shedid not co%pl', alle(edl' because she could not prepare her counter-affidavit. !he clai%ed that she$as not furnished b' !enator Pi%entel pertinent docu%ents that she needed to adeuatel' prepareher counter-affidavit.

n her "%nibus Motion Ad Cautela%15*

to reuire !enator Pi%entel to furnish her $ith docu%entsreferred to in his co%plaint-affidavit and for production of election docu%ents as basis for the char(eof electoral sabota(e, 0MA pra'ed that the oint Co%%ittee issue an "rder directin( the >act->indin( #ea% and !enator Pi%entel to furnish her $ith copies of the follo$in( docu%ents6

a. Co%plaint-affidavit and other relevant docu%ents of !enator Auilino Pi%entel filedbefore the Co%%ission on Elections a(ainst Att's. :ilia !uan-Rada% and Ho(ie Martiri@ar, as$ell as the nfor%ations filed in the Re(ional #rial Court of Pasa' Cit', Branch 118 inCri%inal Case Nos. R-P!-11-3*123-CR to R-P!-11-3*533-CR.

b. Records in the petitions filed b' co%plainant Pi%entel before the National Board ofCanvassers, specificall' in NBC Case Nos. 39-15, 39-14, 39-19, 39-12, 39-11 and 39-1*.

c. Docu%ents $hich served as basis in the alle(ations of 7!i(nificant findin(s specific to theprotested %unicipalities in the Province of Ma(uindanao.7

d. Docu%ents $hich served as basis in the alle(ations of 7!i(nificant findin(s specific to theprotested %unicipalities in the Province of :anao del Norte.7

e. Docu%ents $hich served as basis in the alle(ations of 7!i(nificant findin(s specific to theprotested %unicipalities in the Province of !hariff Jabunsuan.7

f. Docu%ents $hich served as basis in the alle(ations of 7!i(nificant findin(s specific to theprotested %unicipalities in the Province of :anao del !ur.7

(. Docu%ents $hich served as basis in the alle(ations of 7!i(nificant findin(s specific to theprotested %unicipalities in the Province of !ulu.7

h. Docu%ents $hich served as basis in the alle(ations of 7!i(nificant findin(s specific to theprotested %unicipalities in the Province of Basilan.7











i. Docu%ents $hich served as basis in the alle(ations of 7!i(nificant findin(s specific to theprotested %unicipalities in the Province of !ultan Judarat.7158

0MA li/e$ise reuested the production of election docu%ents used in the Provinces of !outh andNorth Cotabato and Ma(uindanao.15

#he oint Co%%ittee, ho$ever, denied 0MAs %otion $hich carried $ith it the denial to extend thefilin( of her counter-affidavit. Conseuentl', the cases $ere sub%itted for resolution sans 0MAs andthe other petitioners counter-affidavits. #his, accordin( to 0MA, violates her ri(ht to due process ofla$.

e do not a(ree.

0MAs insistence of her ri(ht to be furnished the above-enu%erated docu%ents is based on !ection* )b+, Rule 115 of the Rules on Cri%inal Procedure, $hich reads6

)b+ x x x

#he respondent shall have the ri(ht to exa%ine the evidence sub%itted b' the co%plainant $hich he%a' not have been furnished and to cop' the% at his expense. f the evidence is volu%inous, theco%plainant %a' be reuired to specif' those $hich he intends to present a(ainst the respondent,and these shall be %ade available for exa%ination or cop'in( b' the respondent at his expense,

"b&ects as evidence need not be furnished a part' but shall be %ade available for exa%ination,cop'in( or photo(raphin( at the expense of the reuestin( part'.15

!ection )a+, Rule *8 of the Co%elec Rules of Procedure also (rants the respondent such ri(ht ofexa%ination, to $it6

!ec. . Conduct of preli%inar' investi(ation. ? )a+ f on the basis of the co%plaint, affidavits and

other supportin( evidence, the investi(atin( officer finds no (round to continue $ith the inuir', heshall reco%%end the dis%issal of the co%plaint and shall follo$ the procedure prescribed in !ec. 4)c+ of this Rule. "ther$ise, he shall issue a subpoena to the respondent, attachin( thereto a cop' ofthe co%plaint, affidavits and other supportin( docu%ents (ivin( said respondent ten )13+ da's fro%receipt $ithin $hich to sub%it counter-affidavits and other supportin( docu%ents. #he respondentshall have the ri(ht to exa%ine all other evidence sub%itted b' the co%plainant.159

Clearl' fro% the above-uoted provisions, the subpoena issued a(ainst respondent therein shouldbe acco%panied b' a cop' of the co%plaint and the supportin( affidavits and docu%ents. 0MA alsohas the ri(ht to exa%ine docu%ents but such ri(ht of exa%ination is li%ited onl' to the docu%ents or evidence sub%itted b' the co%plainants )!enator Pi%entel and the >act->indin( #ea%+ $hich she%a' not have been furnished and to cop' the% at her expense.

hile it is true that !enator Pi%entel referred to certain election docu%ents $hich served as basesin the alle(ations of si(nificant findin(s specific to the protested %unicipalities involved, there $ereno annexes or attach%ents to the co%plaint filed.154 As stated in the oint Co%%ittees "rder datedNove%ber 1, 5311 den'in( 0MAs "%nibus Motion Ad Cautela%, !enator Pi%entel $as ordered tofurnish petitioners $ith all the supportin( evidence152 Fo$ever, !enator Pi%entel %anifested that he$as adoptin( all the affidavits attached to the >act->indin( #ea%s nitial Report.1*3 #herefore, $hen0MA $as furnished $ith the docu%ents attached to the nitial Report, she $as alread' (ranted theri(ht to exa%ine as (uaranteed b' the Co%elec Rules of Procedure and the Rules on Cri%inal

















Procedure. #hose $ere the onl' docu%ents sub%itted b' the co%plainants to the Co%%ittee. fthere are other docu%ents that $ere referred to in !enator Pi%entels co%plaint but $ere notsub%itted to the oint Co%%ittee, the latter considered those docu%ents unnecessar' at that point)$ithout foreclosin( the relevance of other evidence that %a' later be presented durin( the trial+1*1 asthe evidence sub%itted before it $ere considered adeuate to find probable cause a(ainsther .1*5 An'$a', the failure of the co%plainant to sub%it docu%ents supportin( his alle(ations in the

co%plaint %a' onl' $ea/en his clai%s and eventuall' $or/s for the benefit of the respondent asthese %erel' are alle(ations unsupported b' independent evidence.

e %ust, ho$ever, e%phasi@e at this point that durin( the preli%inar' investi(ation, theco%plainants are not obli(ed to prove their cause be'ond reasonable doubt. t $ould be unfair toexpect the% to present the entire evidence needed to secure the conviction of the accused prior tothe filin( of infor%ation.1** A preli%inar' investi(ation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustivedispla' of the parties respective evidence but the presentation onl' of such evidence as %a'en(ender a $ell-(rounded belief that an offense has been co%%itted and that the accused isprobabl' (uilt' thereof and should be held for trial.1*8 Precisel' there is a trial to allo$ the reception of evidence for the prosecution in support of the char(e.1*

ith the denial of 0MAs %otion to be furnished $ith and exa%ine the docu%ents referred to in!enator Pi%entels co%plaint, 0MAs %otion to extend the filin( of her counter-affidavit andcountervailin( evidence $as conseuentl' denied. ndeed, considerin( the nature of the cri%e for$hich 0MA $as sub&ected to preli%inar' investi(ation and the docu%ents attached to the co%plaint,it is incu%bent upon the oint Co%%ittee to afford her a%ple ti%e to exa%ine the docu%entssub%itted to the oint Co%%ittee in order that she $ould be able to prepare her counter-affidavit.!he cannot, ho$ever, insist to exa%ine docu%ents not in the possession and custod' of the ointCo%%ittee nor sub%itted b' the co%plainants. "ther$ise, it %i(ht cause undue and unnecessar'dela' in the disposition of the cases. #his undue dela' %i(ht result in the violation of the ri(ht to aspeed' disposition of cases as enshrined in !ection 1, Article of the Constitution $hich statesthat 7all persons shall have the ri(ht to a speed' disposition of their cases before all &udicial, uasi- &udicial, or ad%inistrative bodies.7 #he constitutional ri(ht to speed' disposition of cases is notli%ited to the accused in cri%inal proceedin(s but extends to all parties in all cases, includin( civil

and ad%inistrative cases, and in all proceedin(s, includin( &udicial and uasi-&udicial hearin(s.1*

An'part' to a case has the ri(ht to de%and on all officials tas/ed $ith the ad%inistration of &ustice toexpedite its disposition.1*9 !ociet' has a particular interest in brin(in( s$ift prosecutions, and thesociet's representatives are the ones $ho should protect that interest.1*4

Even assu%in( for the sa/e of ar(u%ent that the denial of 0MAs %otion to be furnished $ith andexa%ine the docu%ents referred to in !enator Pi%entels co%plaint carried $ith it the denial toextend the filin( of her counter-affidavit and other countervailin( evidence renderin( the preli%inar'investi(ation irre(ular, such irre(ularit' $ould not divest the R#C of &urisdiction over the case and$ould not nullif' the $arrant of arrest issued in connection there$ith, considerin( that nfor%ationshad alread' been filed a(ainst petitioners, except Mi/e Arro'o. #his $ould onl' co%pel us tosuspend the proceedin(s in the R#C and re%and the case to the oint Co%%ittee so that 0MAcould sub%it her counter-affidavit and other countervailin( evidence if she still opts to. Fo$ever, todo so $ould hold bac/ the pro(ress of the case $hich is anathe%a to the accuseds ri(ht to speed'disposition of cases.

t is $ell settled that the absence or irre(ularit' of preli%inar' investi(ation does not affect the courts &urisdiction over the case. Nor does it i%pair the validit' of the cri%inal infor%ation or render itdefective. Dis%issal is not the re%ed'.1*2 Neither is it a (round to uash the infor%ation or nullif' theorder of arrest issued a(ainst the accused or &ustif' the release of the accused fro% detention.183 #he
































proper course of action that should be ta/en is to hold in abe'ance the proceedin(s upon suchinfor%ation and to re%and the case for the conduct of preli%inar' investi(ation.181

n the land%ar/ cases of Co&uan(co, r. v. Presidential Co%%ission on 0ood 0overn%ent)PC00+185 and Allado v. Dio/no,18* $e dis%issed the cri%inal cases and set aside the infor%ationsand $arrants of arrest. n Co&uan(co, $e dis%issed the cri%inal case because the infor%ation $as

filed b' the PC00 $hich $e declared to be unauthori@ed to conduct the preli%inar' investi(ationand, conseuentl', file the infor%ation as it did not possess the cold neutralit' of an i%partial &ud(e.n Allado, $e set aside the $arrant of arrest issued a(ainst petitioners therein and en&oined the trialcourt fro% proceedin( further for lac/ of probable cause. >or one, there $as serious doubt on thereported death of the victi% in that case since the corpus delicti had not been established nor hadhis re%ains been recovered;and based on the evidence sub%itted, there $as nothin( to incri%inatepetitioners therein. n this case, $e cannot reach the sa%e conclusion because the nfor%ation filedbefore the R#C of Pasa' Cit' $as filed b' the Co%elec en banc $hich had the authorit' to file theinfor%ation for electoral sabota(e and because the presence or absence of probable cause is not anissue herein. As can be (leaned fro% their assi(n%ent of errorsissues, petitioners did not uestionthe findin( of probable cause in an' of their supple%ental petitions. t $as onl' in 0MAs%e%orandu% $here she belatedl' included a discussion on the 7insufficienc'7 of the evidencesupportin( the findin( of probable cause for the filin( of the nfor%ation for electoral sabota(ea(ainst her .188 A closer loo/ at her ar(u%ents, ho$ever, $ould sho$ that the' $ere included onl' tohi(hli(ht the necessit' of exa%inin( the election docu%ents 0MA reuested to see before she couldfile her counter-affidavit. At an' rate, since 0MA failed to sub%it her counter-affidavit and othercountervailin( evidence $ithin the period reuired b' the oint Co%%ittee, $e cannot excuse herfro% non-co%pliance.

#here %i(ht have been over@ealousness on the part of the oint Co%%ittee in ter%inatin( theinvesti(ation, endorsin( the oint Resolution to the Co%elec for approval, and in filin( theinfor%ation in court. Fo$ever, speed in the conduct of proceedin(s b' a &udicial or uasi-&udicialofficer cannot per se be instantl' attributed to an in&udicious perfor%ance of functions.18 #he orderl'ad%inistration of &ustice re%ains the para%ount consideration $ith particular re(ard to the peculiarcircu%stances of each case.18 #o be sure, petitioners $ere (iven the opportunit' to present

countervailin( evidence. nstead of co%pl'in( $ith the oint Co%%ittees directive, several %otions$ere filed but $ere denied b' the oint Co%%ittee. Conseuentl', petitioners ri(ht to sub%itcounter-affidavit and countervailin( evidence $as forfeited. #a/in( into account the constitutionalri(ht to speed' disposition of cases and follo$in( the procedures set forth in the Rules on Cri%inalProcedure and the Co%elec Rules of Procedure, the oint Co%%ittee finall' reached its conclusionand referred the case to the Co%elec. #he latter, in turn, perfor%ed its tas/ and filed the infor%ationin court. ndeed, petitioners $ere (iven the opportunit' to be heard. #he' even activel' participatedin the proceedin(s and in fact filed several %otions before the oint Co%%ittee. Consistent $ith theconstitutional %andate of speed' disposition of cases, unnecessar' dela's should be avoided.

>inall', $e ta/e &udicial notice that on >ebruar' 5*, 5315, 0MA $as alread' arrai(ned and entered aplea of 7not (uilt'7 to the char(e a(ainst her and thereafter filed a Motion for Bail $hich has been(ranted. Considerin( that the constitutionalit' of the creation of the oint Panel is sustained, theactions of the oint Co%%ittee and >act->indin( #ea% are valid and effective. As the infor%ation $asfiled b' the Co%%ission authori@ed to do so, its validit' is sustained. #hus, $e consider said entr' ofplea and the Petition for Bail $aiver on the part of 0MA of her ri(ht to sub%it counter-affidavit andcountervailin( evidence before the oint Co%%ittee, and reco(nition of the validit' of the infor%ationa(ainst her. Fer act indicates that she opts to avail of &udicial re%edies instead of the executivere%ed' of (oin( bac/ to the oint Co%%ittee for the sub%ission of the counter-affidavit andcountervailin( evidence. Besides, as discussed earlier, the absence or irre(ularit' of preli%inar'investi(ation does not affect the courts &urisdiction over the case nor does it i%pair the validit' of thecri%inal infor%ation or render it defective.


















t %ust be stressed, ho$ever, that this supervenin( event does not render the cases before theCourt %oot and acade%ic as the %ain issues raised b' petitioners are the constitutionalit' of thecreation of the oint Co%%ittee and the >act->indin( #ea% and the validit' of the proceedin(sunderta/en pursuant to their respective %andates.

#he Court notes that the oint Co%%ittee and the Co%elec have not disposed of the cases of the

other respondents sub&ects of the preli%inar' investi(ation as so%e of the% $ere sub&ected tofurther investi(ation. n order to re%ove the cloud of doubt that pervades that petitioners are bein(sin(led out, it is to the best interest of all the parties concerned that the oint Co%%ittee and theCo%elec ter%inate the proceedin(s as to the other respondents therein and not %a/e a piece%ealdisposition of the cases.

A peripheral issue $hich nonetheless deserves our attention is the uestion about the credibilit' ofthe Co%elec brou(ht about b' the alle(ed professional relationship bet$een Co%elec Chair%anBrillantes on one hand and the co%plainant !enator Pi%entel and >ernando Poe, r. )>P+, 0MAsrival in the 5338 elections, on the other hand; and b' the other Co%%issioners189 reasons for theirpartial inhibition. #o be sure, Chair%an Brillantes relationship $ith >P and !enator Pi%entel is notone of the (rounds for the %andator' disualification of a Co%%issioner. At its %ost expansive, it

%a' be considered a (round for voluntar' inhibition $hich is indeed discretionar' as the sa%e $aspri%aril' a %atter of conscience and sound discretion on the part of the Co%%issioner &ud(e basedon his or her rational and lo(ical assess%ent of the case.184 Bare alle(ations of bias and pre&udiceare not enou(h in the absence of clear and convincin( evidence to overco%e the presu%ption that a &ud(e $ill underta/e his noble role to dispense &ustice accordin( to la$ and evidence $ithout fear orfavor.182 t bein( discretionar' and since Co%%issioner Brillantes $as in the best position todeter%ine $hether or not there $as a need to inhibit fro% the case, his decision to participate in theproceedin(s, in vie$ of hi(her interest of &ustice, euit' and public interest, should be respected.hile a part' has the ri(ht to see/ the inhibition or disualification of a &ud(e )or prosecutor orCo%%issioner+ $ho does not appear to be $holl' free, disinterested, i%partial, and independent inhandlin( the case, this ri(ht %ust be $ei(hed $ith his dut' to decide cases $ithout fear ofrepression.13

ndeed, in avier v. Co%elec,11 the Court set aside the Co%elecs decision a(ainst avier $hen it$as disclosed that one of the Co%%issioners $ho had decided the case $as a la$ partner ofaviers opponent and $ho had refused to excuse hi%self fro% hearin( the case. avier, ho$ever, isnot applicable in this case. >irst, the cited case involves the Co%elecs exercise of its ad&udicator'function as it $as called upon to resolve the propriet' of the procla%ation of the $inner in the Ma'1248 elections for Batasan( Pa%bansa of Antiue. Clearl', the (rounds for inhibitiondisualification$ere applicable. !econd, the case arose at the ti%e $here the purit' of suffra(e has been defiledand the popular $ill scorned throu(h the confabulation of those in authorit'.15 n other $ords, thecontrovers' arose at the ti%e $hen the public confidence in the Co%elec $as practicall' nil becauseof its transparent bias in favor of the ad%inistration.1*:astl', in deter%inin( the propriet' of thedecision rendered b' the Co%elec, the Court too/ into consideration not onl' the relationship )bein(for%er partners in the la$ fir%+ bet$een private respondents therein, Arturo >. Pacificador, and thenCo%elec Co%%issioner ai%e "pinion )Co%%issioner "pinion+ but also the (eneral attitude of theCo%elec to$ard the part' in po$er at that ti%e. Moreover, the uestioned Co%elec decision $asrendered onl' b' a division of the Co%elec. #he Court thus concluded in avier that Co%%issioner"pinions refusal to inhibit hi%self divested the Co%elecs !econd Division of the necessar' vote forthe uestioned decision and rendered the proceedin(s null and void.18

"n the contrar', the present case involves onl' the conduct of preli%inar' investi(ation and theuestioned resolution is an act of the Co%elec En Banc $here all the Co%%issioners participatedand %ore than a %a&orit' )even if Chair%an Brillantes is excluded+ voted in favor of the assailed





















Co%elec resolution. nli/e in 124, public confidence in the Co%elec re%ains. #he Co%%issionershave alread' ta/en their positions in li(ht of the clai% of 7bias and partialit'7 and the causes of theirpartial inhibition. #heir positions should be respected confident that in doin( so, the' had the end invie$ of ensurin( that the credibilit' of the Co%%ission is not seriousl' affected.

#o recapitulate, $e find and so hold that petitioners failed to establish an' constitutional or le(al

i%pedi%ent to the creation of the oint D"-Co%elec Preli%inar' nvesti(ation Co%%ittee and >act->indin( #ea%.

>irst, $hile 0MA and Mi/e Arro'o $ere a%on( those sub&ected to preli%inar' investi(ation, not allrespondents therein $ere lin/ed to 0MA; thus, oint "rder No. 331-5311 does not violate the eualprotection clause of the Constitution.

!econd, the due process clause is li/e$ise not infrin(ed upon b' the alle(ed pre&ud(%ent of thecase as petitioners failed to prove that the oint Panel itself sho$ed such bias and partialit' a(ainstthe%. Neither $as it sho$n that the ustice !ecretar' herself actuall' intervened in the conduct ofthe preli%inar' investi(ation. More i%portantl', considerin( that the Co%elec is a colle(ial bod', theperceived pre&ud(%ent of Chair%an Brillantes as head of the Co%elec cannot be considered an act

of the bod' itself.

#hird, the assailed oint "rder did not create ne$ offices because the oint Co%%ittee and >act->indin( #ea% perfor% functions that the' alread' perfor% b' virtue of the Constitution, the statutes,and the Rules of Court.1âwphi1

>ourth, in actin( &ointl' $ith the D", the Co%elec cannot be considered to have abdicated itsindependence in favor of the executive branch of (overn%ent. Resolution No. 25 $as validl'issued b' the Co%elec as a %eans to fulfill its dut' of ensurin( the pro%pt investi(ation andprosecution of election offenses as an ad&unct of its %andate of ensurin( a free, orderl', honest,peaceful, and credible elections. #he role of the D" in the conduct of preli%inar' investi(ation ofelection offenses has lon( been reco(ni@ed b' the Co%elec because of its lac/ of funds and le(alofficers to conduct investi(ations and to prosecute such cases on its o$n. #his is especiall' trueafter R.A. No. 2*2 vested in the Co%elec and the D" the concurrent &urisdiction to conductpreli%inar' investi(ation of all election offenses. hile $e uphold the validit' of Co%elec ResolutionNo. 25 and oint "rder No. 331-5311, $e declare the oint Co%%ittees Rules of Procedure infir%for failure to co%pl' $ith the publication reuire%ent. Conseuentl', Rule 115 of the Rules onCri%inal Procedure and the 122* Co%elec Rules of Procedure (overn.

>ifth, petitioners $ere (iven the opportunit' to be heard. #he' $ere furnished a cop' of theco%plaint, the affidavits, and other supportin( docu%ents sub%itted to the oint Co%%ittee and the'$ere reuired to sub%it their counter-affidavit and countervailin( evidence. As to petitioners Mi/e Arro'o and Abalos, the pendenc' of the cases before the Court does not auto%aticall' suspend theproceedin(s before the oint Co%%ittee nor excuse the% fro% their failure to file the reuiredcounter-affidavits. ith the fore(oin( disuisitions, $e find no reason to nullif' the proceedin(s

underta/en b' the oint Co%%ittee and the Co%elec in the electoral sabota(e cases a(ainstpetitioners.

FERE>"RE, pre%ises considered, the petitions and supple%ental petitions are D!M!!ED.Co%elec Resolution No. 25 dated Au(ust 5, 5311, oint "rder No. 331-5311 dated Au(ust 1,5311, and the >act->indin( #ea%s nitial Report dated "ctober 53, 5311, are declared GA:D.Fo$ever, the Rules of Procedure on the Conduct of Preli%inar' nvesti(ation on the Alle(ed Election>raud in the 5338 and 5339 National Elections is declared NE>>EC#GE for lac/ of publication.



n vie$ of the constitutionalit' of the oint Panel and the proceedin(s havin( been conducted inaccordance $ith Rule 115 of the Rules on Cri%inal Procedure and Rule *8 of the Co%elec Rules ofProcedure, the conduct of the preli%inar' investi(ation is hereb' declared GA:D.

:et the proceedin(s in the Re(ional #rial Court of Pasa' Cit', Branch 115, $here the cri%inal casesfor electoral sabota(e a(ainst petitioners 0MA and Abalos are pendin(, proceed $ith dispatch.

!" "RDERED.

IOSAO M. PERALTA Associate ustice

Documents

Arroyo vs. DOJ