Case Digest (G.R. No. 199082)
Facts:
Jose Miguel T. Arroyo v. Department of Justice; Commission on Elections; Hon. Leila De Lima; Hon. Sixto Brillantes, Jr.; and the Joint DOJ-COMELEC Preliminary Investigation Committee, G.R. No. 199082; Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. v. Hon. Leila De Lima; Hon. Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr.; et al., G.R. No. 199085; and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. Commission on Elections; Department of Justice; Joint DOJ-COMELEC Preliminary Investigation Committee, G.R. No. 199118, promulgated September 18, 2012, Supreme Court En Banc, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. The petitions (consolidated) sought relief under Rule 65 (certiorari and prohibition) against the creation and operation of a joint Comelec–DOJ investigative scheme and related acts.Acting on purported new evidence of massive electoral fraud in the 2004 and 2007 elections, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) issued Resolution No. 9266 (Aug. 2, 2011) approving a joint investigative effort with the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ issued Department Order No. 640 (Aug. 4, 2011) assigning prosecutors; the Comelec and DOJ issued Joint Order No. 001‑2011 (Aug. 15, 2011) creating a Fact‑Finding Team (chaired by an Assistant Secretary of DOJ, composed of DOJ, NBI and Comelec personnel) and a Joint Preliminary Investigation Committee (three DOJ members and two Comelec members), and required the Committee to promulgate complementary rules (within days). The Joint Committee promulgated Rules of Procedure on Aug. 23, 2011.
The Fact‑Finding Team’s Initial Report (Oct. 20, 2011) focused on alleged manipulation in the May 14, 2007 senatorial elections and recommended preliminary investigations against several persons, including petitioners GMA, Abalos, and Mike Arroyo in varying degrees. Senator Aquilino Pimentel III filed a complaint‑affidavit (Oct. 17, 2011) which was docketed with the Joint Committee. The Joint Committee issued subpoenas (Oct. 24, 2011); petitioners appeared and were ordered to file counter‑affidavits by Nov. 14, 2011. Several motions by petitioners asking for deferral, production of documents, and suspension were denied by the Joint Committee (Nov. 15, 2011).
The Joint Committee adopted a Joint Resolution (Nov. 16, 2011) indorsed to Comelec en banc, which on Nov. 18, 2011 approved and modified the Committee’s resolution and ordered the Comelec Law Department to file information for electoral sabotage under Section 42(b) of R.A. No. 9369 (amending BP 881) against Gloria Macapagal‑Arroyo, Benjamin Abalos, Sr., and others; it dismissed charges as to certain persons (including Mike Arroyo) for insufficiency of evidence and directed further investigations in other instances. Pursuant to the Comelec resolution, informations were filed in RTC Pasay (Criminal Case No. RPSY‑11‑04432‑CR among others), warrants issued and served, and GMA was arraigned and later released on bail.
Petitioners separately filed Rule 65 petitions and supplemental petitions in the Supreme Court challenging (a) the constitutionality of Comelec Resolution No. 9266, Joint Order No. 001‑2011, the Joint Comm...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are the petitions moot or otherwise non‑justiciable given supervening events (filing of informations; dismissal as to Mike Arroyo) such that the Supreme Court should decline relief?
- Did the Supreme Court have authority to entertain the petitions directly despite the rule on hierarchy of courts?
- Did Joint Order No. 001‑2011, Comelec Resolution No. 9266, and the Joint Committee Rules violate the Equal Protection Clause?
- Did the structure and proceedings of the Joint Committee and Fact‑Finding Team violate Due Process (biased decision‑makers, prejudgment, denial of opportunity to be heard)?
- Did the Joint arrangement infringe the principle of Separation of Powers or the Comelec’s constitutional independence?
- Were the Joint Committee Rules of Procedure invalid for failure to publish, and if so, did that invalidate the Joint Committee’s preliminary investigation?
- Did procedural irregularities in the preliminary investigation (denial of documents, has...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)