Back

Jose Miguel T. Arroyo Vs. Department of Justice, et al./Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. Vs. Hon. Leila de Lima, in her capacity as Secretary of Justice, et a./Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Vs. Commission on Elections, etc., et al. [SEPARATE OPINION, BRION, J.]

JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, Petitioner,-versus- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; HON. LEILA DE LIMA, in her capacity as Secretary of the Department of Justice; HON. SIXTO BRILLANTES, JR., in his capacity as Chairperson of the Commission on Elections; and the JOINT DOJ-COMELEC PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE and FACT-FINDING TEAM, Respondents. BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, SR., Petitioner, -versus- HON.LEILA DE LIMA, in her capacity as Secretary of Justice; HON. SIXTO S.BRILLANTES, JR., in his capacity as COMELEC Chairperson; RENE V. SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO V. VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM AND AUGUSTO C. LAGMAN, in their capacity as COMELEC COMMISSIONERS; CLARO A. ARELLANO, GEORGE C. DEE, JACINTO G. ANG, ROMEO B. FORTES AND MICHAEL D. VILLARET, in their capacity as CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE JOINT DOJ-COMELEC PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE ON THE 2004 AND 2007 ELECTION FRAUD Respondents. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, Petitioner, -versus- COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by Chairperson Sixto S.Brillantes, Jr., DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, represented by Secretary Leila M. De Lima, JOINT DOJ-COMELEC PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE, Respondents.

G.R. No. 199082, 199085 and 199118 | 2013-07-23

DISSENTING OPINION
BRION, J.:

I dissent from the majority's conclusion and vote to grant the petitioners' motions for reconsideration. The reasons for this position are explained below.

In his Motion for Reconsideration (Motion), petitioner Jose Miguel T. Arroyo (Arroyo) argues that the creation of a Fact-Finding Team and a Joint Department of Justice (DOJ)-Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Committee violates the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the COMELEC, in particular, its decisional independence. Arroyo also urges the Court to reconsider its September 18, 2012 Decision and take judicial cognizance of: (1) the alleged “rushed...