Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    G.R. No. 199082 July 23, 2013 JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Et Al, Respondents. Peralta, J.: Nature

    Uploaded by

    Dawn Jessa Go
    The Supreme Court denied motions for reconsideration filed by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Jose Miguel Arroyo regarding a previous decision dismissing their petitions against the Commission on Elections, Department of Justice, and others. The petitions challenged the creation of a Joint Committee by Comelec and DOJ to investigate electoral fraud in the 2004 and 2007 elections. The Court upheld the validity of the Joint Committee and preliminary investigation, finding that concurrent jurisdiction between the agencies was allowed and did not undermine Comelec's independence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 199082 July 23, 2013 JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Et Al, Respondents. Peralta, J.: Nature

    Uploaded by

    Dawn Jessa Go
    47 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court denied motions for reconsideration filed by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Jose Miguel Arroyo regarding a previous decision dismissing their petitions against the Commission on Elections, Department of Justice, and others. The petitions challenged the creation of a Joint Committee by Comelec and DOJ to investigate electoral fraud in the 2004 and 2007 elections. The Court upheld the validity of the Joint Committee and preliminary investigation, finding that concurrent jurisdiction between the agencies was allowed and did not undermine Comelec's independence.

    Original Description:

    consri 2

    Original Title

    Digest 13

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied motions for reconsideration filed by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Jose Miguel Arroyo regarding a previous decision dismissing their petitions against the Commission on Elections, Department of Justice, and others. The petitions challenged the creation of a Joint Committee by Comelec and DOJ to investigate electoral fraud in the 2004 and 2007 elections. The Court upheld the validity of the Joint Committee and preliminary investigation, finding that concurrent jurisdiction between the agencies was allowed and did not undermine Comelec's independence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    47 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 199082 July 23, 2013 JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Et Al, Respondents. Peralta, J.: Nature

    Uploaded by

    Dawn Jessa Go
    The Supreme Court denied motions for reconsideration filed by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Jose Miguel Arroyo regarding a previous decision dismissing their petitions against the Commission on Elections, Department of Justice, and others. The petitions challenged the creation of a Joint Committee by Comelec and DOJ to investigate electoral fraud in the 2004 and 2007 elections. The Court upheld the validity of the Joint Committee and preliminary investigation, finding that concurrent jurisdiction between the agencies was allowed and did not undermine Comelec's independence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    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. No.

    In this case, 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. 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.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy