Jose Miguel Arroyo vs Department of Justice

G.R. No. 199082 – 695 Phil. 302 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Bill of Rights – Equal Protection Clause

In 2011, alleged evidence pointing to massive electoral fraud and manipulation of election results in the 2004 and 2007 surfaced. As a result, the COMELEC issued a resolution creating a joint committee with the DOJ for the purpose of conducting preliminary investigation to probe the alleged electoral fraud in 2004 and 2007. Two complaints were lodged with the COMELEC-DOJ Joint Committee and among the persons sought to be investigated were Jose Miguel Arroyo, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Benjamin Abalos, Sr., Lintang Bedol, Datu Andal Ampatuan, Sr. and others.

Despite protests from Arroyo et al., the investigation proceeded.

Arroyo et al. questioned the constitutionality of the joint committee and the resolution that created it. They argued that it is in violation of the equal protection clause as individuals associated with GMA were being singled out.

ISSUE: Whether or not the joint committee is in violation of the equal protection clause.

HELD: No. The joint committee was not created to single out GMA and her known associates. It was created to investigate alleged fraud in the 2004 and 2007 elections. While GMA and Mike Arroyo were among those subjected to preliminary investigation, not all respondents therein were linked to GMA as there were public officers who were investigated upon in connection with their acts in the performance of their official duties. Private individuals were also subjected to the investigation by the Joint Committee.

Is the special treatment to the investigation of alleged fraud in the 2004 and 2007 elections in violation of the equal protection clause? Why not treat the case just like any other case without creating a special committee consisting of the DOJ and the COMELEC?

No, there is no violation of the equal protection clause. The COMELEC is mandated to conduct investigations in relation to election fraud. As such, it has the authority to determine how best to perform such constitutional mandate. Pursuant to this authority, the COMELEC issues various resolutions prior to every local or national elections setting forth the guidelines to be observed in the conduct of the elections. This shows that every election is distinct and requires different guidelines in order to ensure that the rules are updated to respond to existing circumstances.

The COMELEC may conduct its investigation according to its discretion. Since it is granted such latitude, its varying treatment of similarly situated investigations cannot by itself be considered a violation of any of the parties’ rights to the equal protection of the laws.

Further, since complaints against election frauds may also be filed with the DOJ, there is nothing wrong with the COMELEC joining with the DOJ to conduct preliminary investigations involving electoral fraud.

These varying procedures and treatment do not, however, mean that respondents are not treated alike.

Read full text.