G.R. No. 199082 July 23, 2013 JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO vs. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

G.R. No. 199082               July 23, 2013

JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, Petitioner,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; et al, Respondents.

PERALTA, J.:

NATURE:

These are separate motions for reconsideration filed by movants Gloria Macapagal Arroyo  in G.R. No. 199118 and Jose Miguel T. Arroyo in G.R. No. 199082 praying that the Court take a second look at our September 18, 2012 Decision³ dismissing their petitions and supplemental petitions against respondents Commission on Elections (Comelec), the Department of Justice (DOJ), Senator Aquilino M. Pimentel III (Senator Pimentel), Joint DOJ-Comelec Preliminary Investigation Committee (Joint Committee) and DOJ-Comelec Fact-Finding Team (Fact-Finding Team), et al.

FACTS:

On August 15, 2011, the Comelec and the DOJ issued a Joint Order creating and constituting a Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections electoral fraud and manipulation cases

In its Initial Report of the Fact-Finding Team concluded that manipulation of the results in the May 14, 2007 senatorial elections in the provinces of North and South Cotabato, and Maguindanao was indeed perpetrated. It recommended that Petitioner Benjamin S. Abalos, GMA, and Mike Arroyo be subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage and manipulating the election results.

Thereafter, petitioners filed before the Court separate Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction assailing the creation of the Joint Panel.

On September 18, 2012, the Court rendered the assailed Decision. It ruled that:

1.    Fact- Finding Team’s Initial Report dated October 20, 2011, are declared VALID. However, the Rules of Procedure on the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation on the Alleged Election Fraud in the 2004 and 2007 National Elections is declared INEFFECTIVE for lack of publication.

2.    The Joint Panel and the proceedings having been conducted in accordance with Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and Rule 34 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, the conduct of the preliminary investigation is hereby declared VALID.

ISSUES:

1.    Whether or not the creation of the Joint Panel undermines the decisional independence of the Comelec.

2.    Whether or not the DOJ should conduct preliminary investigation only when deputized by the Comelec but not exercise concurrent jurisdiction

HELD:

1.    The grant of concurrent jurisdiction, the Comelec and the DOJ nevertheless included a provision in the assailed Joint Order whereby the resolutions of the Joint Committee finding probable cause for election offenses shall still be approved by the Comelec in accordance with the Comelec Rules of Procedure.⁴⁵ With more reason, therefore, that we the the court cannot consider the creation of the Joint Committee as an abdication of the Comelec’s independence enshrined in the 1987 Constitution

2.     The creation of a Joint Committee is not repugnant to the concept of "concurrent jurisdiction" authorized by the amendatory law The doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction means equal jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter. Contrary to the contention of the petitioners, there is no prohibition on simultaneous exercise of power between two coordinate bodies. What is prohibited is the situation where one files a complaint against a respondent initially with one office (such as the Comelec) for preliminary investigation which was immediately acted upon by said office and the re-filing of substantially the same complaint with another office (such as the DOJ). The subsequent assumption of jurisdiction by the second office over the cases filed will not be allowed. Indeed, it is a settled rule that the body or agency that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others.

FALLO: petition is denied