Você está na página 1de 2

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

199082 July 23, 2013 JOSE 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-----------------------x G.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-----------------------x G.R. No. 199118 GLORIA MACAPAGAL1ARROYO, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, &%)&%+%#*%0 6y C$("&)%&+o# S"7*o S. /&"ll(#*%+, J&., DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, &%)&%+%#*%0 6y S%'&%*(&y L%"l( M. D% L"-(, JOINT DOJ1COMELEC PRELIMINARY IN2ESTIGATION COMMITTEE, SENATOR A8UILINO M. PIMENTEL III, (#0 DOJ1COMELEC FACT FINDING TEAM, Respondents. RES !"#$ N PERALTA, 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, to 6it7 n 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)ainst petitioners 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 CounterAffidavits 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 ,<, 12,,, the /oint Co&&ittee pro&ul)ated a /oint Resolution 6hich 6as later indorsed to the Co&elec.12 n Nove&ber ,., 12,,, the Co&elec en banc issued a Resolution1, approvin) and adoptin) the /oint Resolution sub=ect to &odifications. #he Co&elec resolved, a&on) others, that an infor&ation for electoral sabota)e be filed a)ainst (MA and Abalos, 6hile the char)es a)ainst Mi0e Arro'o be dis&issed for insufficienc' of evidence. n even date, pursuant to the above Resolution, the Co&elecAs !a6 3epart&ent filed 6ith the Re)ional #rial Court *R#C+, Pasa' Cit', an $nfor&ation a)ainst petitioner (MA, (overnor Andal A&patuan, Sr., and Att'. !intan) B. Bedol, for violation of Section 91*b+*4+ of Republic Act *RA+ No.

-4<-, a&endin) Section 1: *b+ of RA <<9<, doc0eted as Cri&inal Case No. RPSC-,,-29941-CR.11 #he case 6as raffled to Branch ,,1 and the correspondin) @arrant of Arrest 6as issued 6hich 6as served on (MA on the sa&e da'.14 n Nove&ber ,., 12,,, (MA filed 6ith the R#C an "r)ent &nibus Motion Ad Cautela&19 6ith leave to allo6 the /oint Co&&ittee to resolve the &otion for reconsideration filed b' (MA, to defer issuance of a 6arrant of arrest and a hold departure order, and to proceed to =udicial deter&ination of probable cause. She, li0e6ise, filed 6ith the Co&elec a Motion to Dacate Ad Cautela& 18 pra'in) that its Resolution be vacated for bein) null and void. #he R#C, nonetheless, issued a @arrant for her arrest 6hich 6as dul' served. (MA 6as later arrai)ned and she entered a plea of Enot )uilt'.E She 6as, for so&e ti&e, on hospital arrest but 6as able to obtain te&porar' libert' 6hen her &otion for bail 6as )ranted. At present, she is a)ain on hospital arrest b' virtue of a 6arrant issued in another cri&inal case. n Septe&ber ,., 12,1, the Court rendered the assailed 3ecision, the dispositive portion of 6hich reads7 @BERE% RE, pre&ises considered, the petitions and supple&ental petitions are 3$SM$SSE3. Co&elec Resolution No. -1<< dated Au)ust 1, 12,,, /oint rder No. 22,-12,, dated Au)ust ,8, 12,,, and the %act- %indin) #ea&As $nitial Report dated ctober 12, 12,,, are declared DA!$3. Bo6ever, the Rules of Procedure on the Conduct of Preli&inar' $nvesti)ation on the Alle)ed Election %raud in the 1229 and 122: National Elections is declared $NE%%EC#$DE for lac0 of publication. $n vie6 of the constitutionalit' of the /oint Panel and the proceedin)s havin) been conducted in accordance 6ith Rule ,,1 of the Rules on Cri&inal Procedure and Rule 49 of the Co&elec Rules of Procedure, the conduct of the preli&inar' investi)ation is hereb' declared DA!$3. !et the proceedin)s in the Re)ional #rial Court of Pasa' Cit', Branch ,,1, 6here the cri&inal cases for electoral sabota)e a)ainst petitioners (MA and Abalos are pendin), proceed 6ith dispatch. S R3ERE3.1< Bence, these &otions for reconsideration. $ssues Mi0e Arro'o reiterates his ar)u&ents on the independence of the Co&elec as basis in nullif'in) the sub=ect =oint 3 /-Co&elec resolutions. Echoin) /ustice Arturo Brion in his 3issentin) and Concurrin) pinion, 1: Mi0e Arro'o insists that the creation of the /oint Panel under&ines the decisional independence of the Co&elec.1. Mi0e Arro'o also &aintains that the 3 / should conduct preli&inar' investi)ation onl' 6hen deputi;ed b' the Co&elec but not exercise concurrent =urisdiction.1- %inall', as has been repeatedl' pointed out in his earlier pleadin)s before the Court, Mi0e Arro'o clai&s that the proceedin)s involvin) the electoral sabota)e case 6ere rushed because of pressures fro& the executive branch of the )overn&ent.42 %or her part, (MA clai&s that in availin) of the procedural re&edies available, she &erel' exercised her earnest efforts to defend herself and should not have been dee&ed b' the Court as acts 6hich purportedl' tend to de&onstrate that she either 6aived or forfeited her ri)ht to sub&it her counter-affidavit and countervailin) evidence.4, Citin) several cases decided b' the Court, she li0e6ise faults the Court in not upholdin) her ri)ht to as0 for additional ti&e 6ithin 6hich to sub&it her counter-affidavit and countervailin) evidence. 41 (MA hi)hli)hts that the sub=ect Co&elec Resolution creatin) the /oint Panel is different fro& the previous Co&elec resolutions re5uestin) the 3 / Secretar' to assi)n prosecutors to assist the Co&elec, as the latter e&phasi;e the role of the 3 / as deputi;ed a)enc' in the conduct of preli&inar' investi)ation. She &aintains that it is the Co&elec and not the /oint Co&&ittee that has the pri&ar', if not exclusive, authorit' to conduct preli&inar' investi)ation of election cases.44 $n their Consolidated Co&&ent, 49 respondents defend the creation of the /oint Co&&ittee and ar)ue that it does not under&ine the independence of the Co&elec as a constitutional bod' because it is still the Co&elec that ulti&atel' deter&ines probable cause.48 As to the conduct of the preli&inar' investi)ation, respondents &aintain that no ri)hts 6ere violated as (MA 6as afforded the opportunit' to defend herself, sub&it her counter-affidavit and other countervailin) evidence.4< #he', thus, consider (MAAs clai& of availin) of the re&edial &easures as Edela'in) tacticsE e&plo'ed to th6art the investi)ation of char)es a)ainst her b' the /oint Co&&ittee.4: #he CourtAs Rulin) Clearl' fro& the above discussion, &ovants raise issues that have been thorou)hl' explained b' the Court in the assailed decision. #he issues 6ere all addressed and the explanation 6as exhaustive, thus, 6e find no reason to disturb the CourtAs conclusions. At an' rate, if onl' to address the &otions of the &ovants herein and to put an end to the 5uestions attached to the creation of the /oint Panel and, conse5uentl', to the perfor&ance of their assi)ned tas0s, 6e hereb' reiterate our findin)s and conclusions &ade in the assailed decision. #his is not the first ti&e that the Court is confronted 6ith the issue of 6hether the Co&elec has the exclusive po6er to investi)ate and prosecute cases of violations of election la6s. $n Baran)a' Association for National Advance&ent and #ransparenc' *BANA#+ Part'-!ist v. Co&&ission on Elections, 4. the constitutionalit' of Section 944- of RA -4<-92 had alread' been raised b' petitioners therein and addressed b' the Court. @hile reco)ni;in) the Co&elecAs exclusive po6er to investi)ate and prosecute cases under Batas Pa&bansa Bilan) .., or the &nibus Election Code, the Court pointed out that the fra&ers of the ,-.: Constitution did not have such intention. #his exclusivit' is thus a le)islative enact&ent that can ver' 6ell be a&ended b' Section 94 of RA -4<-. #herefore, under the present la6, the Co&elec and other prosecutin) ar&s of the )overn&ent, such as the 3 /, no6 exercise concurrent =urisdiction in the investi)ation and prosecution of election offenses. $ndeed, as aptl' pointed out b' (MA, there is a discrepanc' bet6een Co&elec Resolution No. 49<:9, dated /anuar' ,1, 122, and /oint rder No. 22,-12,,, dated Au)ust ,8, 12,,, creatin) and constitutin) a /oint Co&&ittee and %act%indin) #ea& on the 1229 and 122: National Elections electoral fraud and &anipulation cases. Bo6ever, (MA see&ed to &iss the date 6hen these t6o resolutions 6ere pro&ul)ated b' the Co&elec. $t is note6orth' that Co&elec Resolution No. 49<: 6as issued 6hen Section 1<8 of the &nibus Election Code 6as still effective, 6hile /oint rder No. 22,-12,, as 6ell as Co&elec Resolution Nos. .:4491 and -28:94 &entioned in the assailed decision but &issed out b' (MA in her &otion, 6ere issued durin) the effectivit' of Section 94 of RA -4<-, )ivin) the Co&elec and other prosecutin) ar&s of the )overn&ent the concurrent =urisdiction to investi)ate and prosecute election offenses. #his a&end&ent paved the 6a' for the discrepanc'. $n Co&elec Resolution No. 49<:, the Co&elec &aintained the continuin) deputation of

prosecutors and the Co&elec !a6 3epart&ent 6as tas0ed to supervise the investi)ator' and prosecutor' functions of the tas0 force pursuant to the &andate of the &nibus Election Code. Bo6ever, 6ith the a&end&ent, the Co&elec li0e6ise chan)ed the tenor of the later resolutions to reflect the ne6 &andate of the Co&elec and other prosecutin) ar&s of the )overn&ent no6 exercisin) concurrent =urisdiction. #hus, the Co&elec !a6 3epart&ent and the ffice of the Chief State Prosecutor of the 3 / 6ere tas0ed to =ointl' supervise the investi)ator' and prosecutor' functions of the Co&elec-3 / #as0 %orce. Considerin), therefore, that the later resolutions, includin) /oint rder No. 22,12,,, 6ere issued pursuant to Section 94 of RA -4<- a&endin) Section 1<8 of BP .., 6hich 6as declared EconstitutionalE in Banat, there is no reason for us to declare other6ise. #o &aintain the previous role of other prosecutin) ar&s of the )overn&ent as &ere deputies despite the a&end&ent 6ould &ean challen)in) Section 94 of RA -4<- ane6 6hich has alread' been settled in Banat. #o be sure, the creation of a /oint Co&&ittee is not repu)nant to the concept of Econcurrent =urisdictionE authori;ed b' the a&endator' la6. As 6e explained in our Septe&ber ,., 12,1 3ecision7 x x x #he doctrine of concurrent =urisdiction &eans e5ual =urisdiction to deal 6ith the sa&e sub=ect &atter. Contrar' to the contention of the petitioners, there is no prohibition on si&ultaneous exercise of po6er bet6een t6o coordinate bodies. @hat is prohibited is the situation 6here one files a co&plaint a)ainst a respondent initiall' 6ith one office *such as the Co&elec+ for preli&inar' investi)ation 6hich 6as i&&ediatel' acted upon b' said office and the re-filin) of substantiall' the sa&e co&plaint 6ith another office *such as the 3 /+. #he subse5uent assu&ption of =urisdiction b' the second office over the cases filed 6ill not be allo6ed. $ndeed, it is a settled rule that the bod' or a)enc' that first ta0es co)ni;ance of the co&plaint shall exercise =urisdiction to the exclusion of the others. xxxx None of these proble&s 6ould li0el' arise in the present case. #he Co&elec and the 3 / the&selves a)reed that the' 6ould exercise their concurrent =urisdiction =ointl'. Althou)h the preli&inar' investi)ation 6as conducted on the basis of t6o co&plaints F the initial report of the %act-%indin) #ea& and the co&plaint of Senator Pi&entel F both co&plaints 6ere filed 6ith the /oint Co&&ittee. Conse5uentl', the co&plaints 6ere filed 6ith and the preli&inar' investi)ation 6as conducted b' onl' one investi)ative bod'. #hus, 6e find no reason to disallo6 the exercise of concurrent =urisdiction =ointl' b' those )iven such authorit'. #his is especiall' true in this case )iven the &a)nitude of the cri&es alle)edl' co&&itted b' petitioners. #he =oint preli&inar' investi)ation also serves to &axi&i;e the resources and &anpo6er of both the Co&elec and the 3 / for the pro&pt disposition of the cases. 99 Not6ithstandin) the )rant of concurrent =urisdiction, the Co&elec and the 3 / nevertheless included a provision in the assailed /oint rder 6hereb' the resolutions of the /oint Co&&ittee findin) probable cause for election offenses shall still be approved b' the Co&elec in accordance 6ith the Co&elec Rules of Procedure.98 @ith &ore reason, therefore, that 6e cannot consider the creation of the /oint Co&&ittee as an abdication of the Co&elecAs independence enshrined in the ,-.: Constitution. %inall', 6e focus on the validit' of the preli&inar' investi)ation conducted b' the /oint Co&&ittee. #he procedure in conductin) the preli&inar' investi)ation is )overned b' Rule ,,1 of the Revised Rules on Cri&inal Procedure and Rule 49 of the Co&elec Rules of Procedure. "nder both Rules,9< the respondent shall sub&it his counter-affidavit and that of his 6itnesses and other supportin) docu&ents relied upon for his defense, 6ithin ten *,2+ da's fro& receipt of the subpoena, 6ith the co&plaint and supportin) affidavits and docu&ents. 9:Also in both Rules, respondent is )iven the ri)ht to exa&ine evidence, but such ri)ht of exa&ination is li&ited onl' to the docu&ents or evidence sub&itted b' co&plainants 6hich she &a' not have been furnished and to cop' the& at her expense.9. As to the alle)ed denial of (MAAs ri)ht to exa&ine docu&ents, 6e &aintain that no ri)ht 6as violated in vie6 of the li&itation of such ri)ht as set forth above. @e reiterate our explanation in the assailed decision, to 6it7 @hile it is true that Senator Pi&entel referred to certain election docu&ents 6hich served as bases in the alle)ations of si)nificant findin)s specific to the protested &unicipalities involved, there 6ere no annexes or attach&ents to the co&plaint filed. As stated in the /oint Co&&itteeAs rder dated Nove&ber ,8, 12,, den'in) (MAAs &nibus Motion Ad Cautela&, Senator Pi&entel 6as ordered to furnish petitioners 6ith all the supportin) evidence. Bo6ever, Senator Pi&entel &anifested that he 6as adoptin) all the affidavits attached to the %act-%indin) #ea&As $nitial Report. #herefore, 6hen (MA 6as furnished 6ith the docu&ents attached to the $nitial Report, she 6as alread' )ranted the ri)ht to exa&ine as )uaranteed b' the Co&elec Rules of Procedure and the Rules on Cri&inal Procedure. #hose 6ere the onl' docu&ents sub&itted b' the co&plainants to the Co&&ittee. $f there are other docu&ents that 6ere referred to in Senator Pi&entelAs co&plaint but 6ere not sub&itted to the /oint Co&&ittee, the latter considered those docu&ents unnecessar' at that point *6ithout foreclosin) the relevance of other evidence that &a' later be presented durin) the trial+ as the evidence sub&itted before it 6ere considered ade5uate to find probable cause a)ainst her. x x x 9-1wphi1 Neither 6as (MAAs ri)ht violated 6hen her &otion for extension of ti&e 6ithin 6hich to sub&it her counter-affidavit and countervailin) evidence 6as conse5uentl' denied. #he Rules use the ter& EshallE in re5uirin) the respondent to sub&it counter-affidavit and other countervailin) evidence 6ithin ten *,2+ da's fro& receipt of the subpoena. $t is settled that the use of the 6ord EshallE 6hich is a 6ord of co&&and, underscores the &andator' character of the rule.82 As in an' other rule, thou)h, liberalit' in the application &a' be allo6ed provided that the part' is able to present a co&pellin) =ustification for the nonobservance of the &andator' rules. $n the 122. Revised Manual for Prosecutors, investi)atin) prosecutors allo6 or )rant &otions or re5uests for extension of ti&e to sub&it counter-affidavits 6hen the interest of =ustice de&ands that respondent be )iven reasonable ti&e or sufficient opportunit' to en)a)e the services of counsel> exa&ine volu&inous records sub&itted in support of the co&plaint or underta0e research on novel, co&plicated or technical 5uestions or issues of la6 and facts of the case. 8, $n this case, (MA clai&ed that she could not sub&it her counteraffidavit 6ithin the prescribed period because she needed to exa&ine docu&ents &entioned in Senator Pi&entelAs co&plaint-affidavit. $t appeared, ho6ever, that said docu&ents 6ere not sub&itted to the /oint Co&&ittee and the onl' supportin) docu&ents available 6ere those attached to the $nitial Report of the %act%indin) #ea&. Ad&ittedl', (MA 6as furnished those docu&ents. #hus, at the ti&e she as0ed for the extension of ti&e 6ithin 6hich to file her counter-affidavit, she ver' 6ell 0ne6 that the docu&ents she 6as as0in) 6ere not in the record of

the case. bviousl', she 6as not furnished those docu&ents because the' 6ere not sub&itted to the /oint Co&&ittee. !o)icall', she has no ri)ht to exa&ine said docu&ents. @e cannot, therefore, fault the /oint Co&&ittee in conse5uentl' den'in) her &otion for extension to file counter-affidavit as there 6as no co&pellin) =ustification for the non-observance of the period she 6as earlier re5uired to follo6. And as 6e held in the assailed decision7 #here &i)ht have been over;ealousness on the part of the /oint Co&&ittee in ter&inatin) the investi)ation, endorsin) the /oint Resolution to the Co&elec for approval, and in filin) the infor&ation in court. Bo6ever, speed in the conduct of proceedin)s b' a =udicial or 5uasi=udicial officer cannot per se be instantl' attributed to an in=udicious perfor&ance of functions. #he orderl' ad&inistration of =ustice re&ains the para&ount consideration 6ith particular re)ard to the peculiar circu&stances of each case. #o be sure, petitioners 6ere )iven the opportunit' to present countervailin) evidence. $nstead of co&pl'in) 6ith the /oint Co&&itteeAs directive, several &otions 6ere filed but 6ere denied b' the /oint Co&&ittee. Conse5uentl', petitionersA ri)ht to sub&it counter-affidavit and countervailin) evidence 6as forfeited. #a0in) into account the constitutional ri)ht to speed' disposition of cases and follo6in) the procedures set forth in the Rules on Cri&inal Procedure and the Co&elec Rules of Procedure, the /oint Co&&ittee finall' reached its conclusion and referred the case to the Co&elec. #he latter, in turn, perfor&ed its tas0 and filed the infor&ation in court. $ndeed, petitioners 6ere )iven the opportunit' to be heard. #he' even activel' participated in the proceedin)s and in fact filed several &otions before the /oint Co&&ittee. Consistent 6ith the constitutional &andate of speed' disposition of cases, unnecessar' dela's should be avoided.81 %inall', in our assailed decision, 6e alread' too0 =udicial notice that not onl' did (MA enter a plea of Enot )uilt',E she also filed a Motion for Bail and after due hearin), it 6as )ranted. Apparentl', she benefited fro& the R#C rder )ivin) her te&porar' libert'. $n filin) the &otion before the R#C and activel' participatin) therein, she has chosen to see0 =udicial re&ed' before the R#C 6here the electoral sabota)e case is pendin) instead of the executive re&ed' of )oin) bac0 to the /oint Co&&ittee for the sub&ission of her counter-affidavit and countervailin) evidence. Besides, as thorou)hl' discussed in the assailed decision, the irre)ularit' or even the absence of preli&inar' investi)ation does not i&pair the validit' of the infor&ation filed a)ainst her. @BERE% RE, pre&ises considered, the Motions for Reconsideration are 3EN$E3 for lac0 of &erit. S R3ERE3. GR No. 112497, August 4, 1994 Drilon vs. Lim FACTS: Pursuant to Section 187 of the Local Government Code, the Secretary of Justice had, on appeal to him of four oil companies and a taxpayer, declared Ordinance o! 77"#, other$ise %no$n as the &anila 'evenue Code, null and void for non(compliance $ith the prescri)ed procedure in the enactment of tax ordinances and for containin* certain provisions contrary to la$ and pu)lic policy! +n a petition for certiorari filed )y the City of &anila, the 'e*ional ,rial Court of &anila revo%ed the Secretary-s resolution and sustained the ordinance, holdin* inter alia that the procedural re.uirements had )een o)served! &ore importantly, it declared Section 187 of the Local Government Code as unconstitutional )ecause of its vesture in the Secretary of Justice of the po$er of control over local *overnments in violation of the policy of local autonomy mandated in the Constitution and of the specific provision therein conferrin* on the President of the Philippines only the po$er of supervision over local *overnments! ,he court cited the familiar distinction )et$een control and supervision, the first )ein* /the po$er of an officer to alter or modify or set aside $hat a su)ordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to su)stitute the 0ud*ment of the former for the latter,1 $hile the second is /the po$er of a superior officer to see to it that lo$er officers perform their functions is accordance $ith la$!1 ISS !S: ,he issues in this case are 213 $hether or not Section 187 of the Local Government Code is unconstitutional4 and 253 $hether or not the Secretary of Justice can exercise control, rather than supervision, over the local *overnment "!LD: ,he 0ud*ment of the lo$er court is reversed in so far as its declaration that Section 187 of the Local Government Code is unconstitutional )ut affirmed the said lo$er court-s findin* that the procedural re.uirements in the enactment of the &anila 'evenue Code have )een o)served! Section 187 authori6es the Secretary of Justice to revie$ only the constitutionality or le*ality of the tax ordinance and, if $arranted, to revo%e it on either or )oth of these *rounds! 7hen he alters or modifies or sets aside a tax ordinance, he is not also permitted to su)stitute his o$n 0ud*ment for the 0ud*ment of the local *overnment that enacted the measure! Secretary 8rilon did set aside the &anila 'evenue Code, )ut he did not replace it $ith his o$n version of $hat the Code should )e! 9n officer in control lays do$n the rules in the doin* of an act! +t they are not follo$ed, he may, in his discretion, order the act undone or re(done )y his su)ordinate or he may even decide to do it himself! Supervision does not cover such authority! ,he supervisor or superintendent merely sees to it that the rules are follo$ed, )ut he himself does not lay do$n such rules, nor does he have the discretion to modify or replace them! +n the opinion of the Court, Secretary 8rilon did precisely this, and no more nor less than this, and so performed an act not of control )ut of mere supervision! 'e*ardin* the issue on the non(compliance $ith the prescri)ed procedure in the enactment of the &anila 'evenue Code, the Court carefully examined every exhi)it and a*ree $ith the trial court that the procedural re.uirements have indeed )een o)served! ,he only exceptions are the postin* of the ordinance as approved )ut this omission does not affect its validity, considerin* that its pu)lication in three successive issues of a ne$spaper of *eneral circulation $ill satisfy due process!