ARROYO ARROYO VS. DOJ AND COMELEC COMELEC GR. NO. 199082, SEPT 18 2012 G.R. No. 199082 : Septembe 18, 2012
FACTS: The Comelec issued Resolution No. 9266 approving the creation of a oint committee !ith the "epartment of #ustice $"%#&' !hich shall conduct preliminar( investigation investigation on the alleged election offenses and anomalies committed during the 2))* and 2))+ elections. The Comelec and the "%# issued #oint %rder No. )),-2),, creating and constituting a #oint Committee and Fact-Finding Team Team on the 2))* and 2))+ National lections electoral fraud and manipulation cases composed of of/icials from the "%# and the Comelec. 0n its initial report' the Fact-Finding Team Team concluded that manipulation of the results in the 1a( ,*' 2))+ senatorial elections in the provinces of North and South Cotaato and 1aguindanao !ere indeed perpetrated. The Fact-Finding Team recommended that herein petitioners 3loria 1acapagal-Arro(o $31A&' et al. to e suected to preliminar( investigation for electoral saotage. After the preliminar( investigation' the C%14C en anc adopted a resolution ordering that information5s for the crime of electoral saotage e /iled against 31A' et al. !hile that the charges against #ose 1iguel Arro(o' among others' should e dismissed for insuf/icienc( of evidence. Conseuentl(' 31A' et al. assail the validit( of the creation of C%14C-"%# #oint 7anel and of #oint %rder No. )),-2),, efore the Supreme Court. 0SS8S: !. "#et#e o $ot t#e %e&t'o$ % e&t'o$ o( COMELEC)DOJ Jo'$t P&$e* P&$e* '+ &*'- !!. "#et#e o $ot Jo'$t O-e No. N o. 001)2011 'o*&te+ t#e e/&* pote%t'o$ %*&+e ELD: Pet't'o$+ &e D!SM!SSED. !RST !SS3E: T#e %e&t'o$ o( COMELEC)DOJ Jo'$t P&$e* '+ &*'-. POL!T!CAL LA": po4e+ o( COMELEC
Section 2' Article 0-C of the ,9+ Constitution enumerates enumerates the po!ers and functions of the Comelec. The grant to the Comelec of the po!er to invest i nvestigate igate and prosecute election offenses as an adunct to the enforcement and administration of all election la!s is intended to enale the Comelec to effectivel( insure to the people the free' orderl(' and honest conduct of elections. The constitutional grant of prosecutorial po!er in the Comelec !as re/lected in Section 26; of
clusivel( !ith the Comelec. The latter' ho!ever' !as given ( the same provision of la! the authorit( to avail itself of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government. Thus' under the %mnius lection Code' !hile the e>clusive urisdiction to conduct
preliminar( investigation had een lodged !ith the Comelec' the prosecutors had een conducting preliminar( investigations pursuant to the continuing delegated authorit( given ( the Comelec. Thus' Comelec Resolution No. 9266' approving the creation of the #oint Committee and FactFinding Team' should e vie!ed not as an adication of the constitutional od(s independence ut as a means to ful/ill its dut( of ensuring the prompt investigation and prosecution of election offenses as an adunct of its mandate of ensuring a free' orderl(' honest' peaceful and credile elections. SECOND !SS3E: Jo'$t O-e No. 001)2011 -oe+ $ot 'o*&te t#e e/&* pote%t'o$ %*&+e. CONST!T3T!ONAL LA": e/&* pote%t'o$
7etitioners claim that the creation of the #oint Committee and Fact-Finding Team is in violation of the eual protection clause of the Constitution ecause its sole purpose is the investigation and prosecution of certain persons and incidents. The( insist that the #oint 7anel !as created to target onl( the Arro(o Administration as !ell as pulic of/icials lin=ed to the Arro(o Administration. ?hile 31A and 1i=e Arro(o !ere among those suected to preliminar( investigation' not all respondents therein !ere lin=ed to 31A as there !ere pulic of/icers !ho !ere investigated upon in connection !ith their acts in the performance of their of/icial duties. 7rivate individuals !ere also suected to the investigation ( the #oint Committee. The eual protection guarantee e>ists to prevent undue favor or privilege. 0t is intended to eliminate discrimination and oppression ased on ineualit(. Recogni@ing the e>istence of real differences among men' it does not demand asolute eualit(. 0t merel( reuires that all persons under li=e circumstances and conditions shall e treated ali=e oth as to privileges conferred and liailities enforced. D!SM!SSED.
