Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No.
199082 July 23, 2013JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, Petitioner,
vs.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS !ON. LEILA DE
LIMA, "# $%& '()('"*y (+ S%'&%*(&y o, *$%
D%)(&*-%#* o, Ju+*"'% !ON. SI.TO /RILLANTES, JR., "# $"+
'()('"*y (+ C$("&)%&+o# o, *$% Co--"++"o# o# El%'*"o#+ (#0
*$% JOINT DOJ1COMELEC PRELIMINARY IN2ESTIGATION COMMITTEE (#0
FACT1FINDING TEAM, Respondents.x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - xG.R. No. 199083/ENJAMIN S. A/ALOS, SR., Petitioner,
vs.!ON. LEILA DE LIMA, "# '()('"*y (+ S%'&%*(&y o, Ju+*"'%
!ON. SI.TO S. /RILLANTES, JR., "# $"+ '()('"*y (+ COMELEC
C$("&)%&+o# RENE 2. SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO
2. 2ELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOP!, C!RISTIAN RO/ERT S.LIM AND AUGUSTO C.
LAGMAN, "# *$%"& '()('"*y (+ COMELEC COMMISSIONERS CLARO A.
ARELLANO, GEORGE C. DEE, JACINTO G. ANG, ROMEO /. FORTES AND
MIC!AEL D. 2ILLARET, "# *$%"& '()('"*y (+ C!AIRPERSON AND
MEM/ERS, RESPECTI2ELY, OF T!E JOINT DOJ1COMELEC PRELIMINARY
IN2ESTIGATION COMMITTEE ON T!E 2004 AND 2005 ELECTION FRAUD,
Respondents.x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xG.R.
No. 199118GLORIA MACAPAGAL1ARROYO, Petitioner, vs.COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, &%)&%+%#*%0 6y C$("&)%&+o# S"7*o S.
/&"ll(#*%+, J&., DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, &%)&%+%#*%0
6y S%'&%*(&yL%"l( M. D% L"-(, JOINT DOJ1COMELEC PRELIMINARY
IN2ESTIGATION COMMITTEE, SENATOR A8UILINO M. PIMENTEL III,(#0
DOJ1COMELEC FACT FINDING TEAM, Respondents.R E S! " # $NPERALTA,
J.:%or resolution are the separate &otions for reconsideration
filed b' &ovants (loria Macapa)al Arro'o *(MA+, in (.R. No.
,--,,. and /ose Mi)uel #. Arro'o *Mi0e Arro'o +1 in (.R. No. ,--2.1
pra'in) that the Court ta0e a second loo0 at our Septe&ber ,.,
12,1 3ecision4 dis&issin) their petitions and supple&ental
petitions a)ainst respondents Co&&ission on Elections
*Co&elec+, the 3epart&ent of /ustice *3/+, Senator A5uilino
M. Pi&entel $$$ *Senator Pi&entel+, /oint 3/-Co&elec
Preli&inar' $nvesti)ation Co&&ittee */oint
Co&&ittee+ and 3/-Co&elec %act-%indin) #ea&
*%act-%indin) #ea&+, et al.%or a better perspective, 6e briefl'
state the relevant factual and procedural antecedents as found b'
the Court in the assailed decision, to6it7n Au)ust ,8, 12,,, the
Co&elec and the 3/ issued /oint rder No. 22,-12,, creatin) and
constitutin) a /oint Co&&ittee and %act-%indin) #ea&
*referred to as /oint Panel+ on the 1229 and 122: National
Elections electoral fraud and &anipulation cases. #he /oint
Co&&ittee 6as &andated to conduct the necessar'
preli&inar' investi)ation on the basis of the evidence )athered
and the char)es reco&&ended b' the %act-%indin) #ea&.
#he %act-%indin) #ea&, on the other hand, 6as created for the
purpose of )atherin) real, docu&entar', and testi&onial
evidence 6hich can be utili;ed in the preli&inar' investi)ation
to be conducted b' the /oint Co&&ittee. Pursuant to Section
:9 of the /oint rder, on Au)ust 14, 12,,, the /oint
Co&&ittee pro&ul)ated its Rules of Procedure.$n its
$nitial Report8 dated ctober 12, 12,,, the %act-%indin) #ea&
concluded that &anipulation of the results in the Ma' ,9, 122:
senatorial elections in the provinces of North and South Cotabato,
and Ma)uindanao 6as indeed perpetrated.< #he %act-%indin)
#ea& reco&&ended, a&on) others, that petitioner
Ben=a&in S. Abalos, Sr. *Abalos+ be sub=ected to
preli&inar' investi)ation for electoral sabota)e for conspirin)
to &anipulate the election results in North and South
Cotabato> that (MA and Abalos be sub=ected to another
preli&inar' investi)ation for &anipulatin) the election
results in Ma)uindanao>: and, that Mi0e Arro'o be sub=ected to
further investi)ation.. #he case 6as doc0eted as 3/-Co&elec
Case No. 22,-12,,.Mean6hile, on ctober ,:, 12,,, Senator
Pi&entel filed a Co&plaintAffidavit- for Electoral Sabota)e
a)ainst petitioners and t6elve others, and several /ohn 3oes and
/ane 3oes. #he case 6as doc0eted as 3/-Co&elec Case No.
221-12,,.n ctober 19, 12,,, the /oint Co&&ittee issued t6o
subpoenas a)ainstpetitioners in 3/-Co&elec Case Nos. 22,-12,,
and 221-12,,.,2 n Nove&ber 4, 12,,, petitioners, throu)h
counsel, appeared before the /oint Co&&ittee,, and
respondents therein 6ere ordered to sub&it their
Counter-Affidavits b' Nove&ber ,9, 12,,.,1#hereafter,
petitioners filed before the Court separate Petitions for
Certiorari and Prohibition 6ith Pra'er for the $ssuance of a
#e&porar' Restrainin) rder *#R+ and?or @rit of Preli&inar'
$n=unction assailin) the creation of the /oint Panel.,4 #he
petitions 6ere eventuall' consolidated.n Nove&ber ,9, 12,,,
Mi0e Arro'o filed a Motion to 3efer Proceedin)s,9 before the /oint
Co&&ittee, in vie6 of the pendenc' of his petition before
the Court. n the sa&e da', (MA filed before the /oint
Co&&ittee an &nibus Motion Ad Cautela&,8 to re5uire
Senator Pi&entel to furnish her 6ith docu&ents referred to
in his co&plaint-affidavit and for the production of election
docu&ents as basis for the char)e of electoral sabota)e. (MA
pra'ed that she be allo6ed to file her counter-affidavit 6ithin ten
*,2+ da's fro& receipt of the re5uested docu&ents.,<
Petitioner Abalos, for his part, filed a Motion to Suspend
Proceedin)s *Ex Abundante Ad Cautela&+,,: in vie6 of the
pendenc' of his petition brou)ht before the Court.$n an rder,.
dated Nove&ber ,8, 12,,, the /oint Co&&ittee denied the
aforesaid &otions of petitioners. (MA, subse5uentl', filed a
&otion for reconsideration.,-n Nove&ber , this 6as later on
captioned as Ad&inistrative Case No. 22,. After (on;ales
sub&itted her co&&ent, an Ad Boc $nvesti)ation
Co&&ittee found her )uilt' of the char)es a)ainst her, and
reco&&ended to (overnor Pi&entel that she be held
ad&inistrativel' liable.9 n Septe&ber 42, ,---, (overnor
Pi&entel adopted the Ad Boc $nvesti)ation Co&&itteeAs
reco&&endation and dis&issed (on;ales.8Proceedin)s
before the Civil Service Co&&ission(on;ales appealed
(overnor Pi&entelAs decision to the Civil Service
Co&&ission *CSC+. #he CSC issued Resolution No. 22,9,.<
&odif'in) (overnor Pi&entelAs decision, findin) (on;ales
)uilt' of insubordination and suspendin) her for six &onths.
#his decision 6as appealed b' (overnor Pi&entel, 6hich the CSC
denied in its Resolution No. 22,-81.:(on;ales then filed a
&otion for execution and clarification of Resolution No.
22,9,., in 6hich she clai&ed that she had alread' served her
six-&onth suspension and as0ed to be reinstated. #he CSC issued
Resolution No. 221198,. 6hich directed (on;alesA
reinstate&ent.(overnor Pi&entel reinstated (on;ales as
provincial ad&inistrator on ctober ,1, 1222, but ter&inated
her services the next da' for lac0 of confidence. Be then 6rote a
letter- to the CSC reportin) his co&pliance 6ith its order, and
(on;alesA subse5uent dis&issal as a confidential e&plo'ee.
$n his letter, (overnor Pi&entel cited Resolution No.
222,,8.,,2 6here the CSC ruled that the provincial
ad&inistrator position is hi)hl' confidential and is
coter&inous in nature.#he CSC responded throu)h Resolution No.
24222.,,, 6hich a)ain directed (on;alesA reinstate&ent as
provincial ad&inistrator. $t clarified that 6hile the !ocal
(overn&ent Code of ,--, *Republic Act No. RA :, thus, she could
be re&oved fro& office at an' ti&e.$n the current case,
Con)ress, throu)h RA :,4. %RANC$SC (. 3A#!, /R., of le)al a)e,
&arried, %ilipino, and residin) at North l'&pus Bl0., 4,
!ot ,8 Ph9(rie) St., Novaliches, Kue;on Cit', hereinafter referred
toas the #B$R3 PAR#C>9. REME3$S 3. ARK"$JA, of le)al a)e,
&arried, %ilipino, and residin) at ,.., C.M. Recto Avenue,
Sa&paloc, Manila, hereinafter referred to as the
%"R#BPAR#C>8. !$N3A (A33$ 3AD$3, of le)al a)e, &arried,
%ilipino, and residin) at ,82 3on %rancisco, St. %rancis Dil., San
%ernando, Pa&pan)a Cit' *sic+ hereinafter referred to as the
%$%#B PAR#C>x x x xAR#$C!E $$$#BE !$S# % CAN3$3A#ES@e a)ree that
official candidates of the SEN$R C$#$JENS PAR#C-!$S# and in the
follo6in) order shall be7Na&e C#C No. $ssued at $ssued on,.
(odofredo D. Ar5ui;a S.C.$.3.N1 *b+ the no&inee 6ithdra6s in
6ritin) his no&ination> or *c+ the no&inee beco&es
incapacitated.x x x x#hus, even if the expulsion of 3atol in the
petitioner part'-list 6ere true, the list and order of no&inees
of the Senior Citi;enAs part'-list re&ains the sa&e in so
far as 6e are concerned as it does not fall under one of the three
)rounds &entioned above. Neither does it have an auto&atic
effect on the or)ani;ationAs representative in the Bouse of
Representatives, for once a part'-list no&inee is EelectedE
into office and beco&es a &e&ber of the Bouse, he is
treated si&ilarl' and e5uall' 6ith the re)ular district
representatives. As such, the' can onl' be expelled or suspended
upon the concurrence of the t6o-thirds of all its Me&bers
andnever b' &ere expulsion of a part'-list or)ani;ation.x x x
x@BERE%RE, there bein) no vacanc' in the list of no&inees of
the petitioner or)ani;ation, the instant petition is hereb'
3$SM$SSE3 for lac0 of &erit. #he list and order of no&inees
of petitioner hereb' re&ains the sa&e as it 6as
sub&itted to us there bein) no le)all' reco)ni;able )round to
cause an' chan)es thereat.19 *Citation o&itted.+#he 3atol (roup
filed A Der' "r)ent Motion for Reconsideration18 of the above
resolution, but the sa&e re&ained unresolved.#he Revie6 of
SEN$R C$#$JENSA Re)istrationMean6hile, the 3atol (roup and the
Ar5ui;a (roup filed their respective Manifestations of $ntent to
Participate in the Part'-list S'ste& of Representation in the
Ma' ,4, 12,4 Elections under the na&e of SEN$R C$#$JENS.1 and:.
#he proper re&ed' to 5uestion his citi;enship is throu)h a
petition for 5uo 6arranto, 6hich should have been filed 6ithin ten
da's fro& his procla&ation.Petitioner Casan Macode
Ma5uilin) *Ma5uilin)+, another candidate for &a'or of
Maus6a)an, and 6ho )arnered the second hi)hest nu&ber of votes
in the 12,2 elections, intervened in the case and filed before the
CME!EC En Banc a Motion for Reconsideration to)ether 6ith an
pposition to ArnadoAs A&ended Motion for Reconsideration.
Ma5uilin) ar)ued that 6hile the %irst 3ivision correctl'
dis5ualified Arnado, the order of succession under Section 99 of
the !ocal (overn&ent Code is not applicable in this case.
Conse5uentl', he clai&ed that the cancellation of ArnadoAs
candidac' and the nullification of his procla&ation, Ma5uilin),
as the le)iti&ate candidate 6ho obtained the hi)hest nu&ber
of la6ful votes, should be proclai&ed as the 6inner.Ma5uilin)
si&ultaneousl' filed his Me&orandu& 6ith his Motion for
$ntervention and his Motion for Reconsideration. Arnado opposed all
&otions filed b' Ma5uilin), clai&in) that intervention is
prohibited after a decision has alread' been rendered, and that as
a second-placer, Ma5uilin) undoubtedl' lost the elections and thus
does not stand to be pre=udiced or benefitted b' the final
ad=udication of the case.RULING OF T!E COMELEC EN /ANC$n its
Resolution of 21 %ebruar' 12,,, the CME!EC En Banc held that under
Section < of Republic Act No.
