Election Investigations Guidebook In Baytan v. Commission on Elections, the Supreme Court of the Philippines highlighted how probable cause serves as a standard for determining whether an allegation merits being investigated and brought to trial. Petitioners in this case inadvertently registered to vote in two different precincts. Realizing their error, they went to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to remedy the situation. When COMELEC subsequently issued a resolution initiating an investigation against them, the petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that COMELEC had committed a grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court disagreed: “Petitioners lose sight of the fact that the assailed resolutions were issued in the preliminary investigation stage.” An “essentially inquisitorial” administrative investigation only requires “the determination of probable cause to justify the holding of petitioners for trial.” Furthermore, the Court concluded that the petitioners’ claims of honest mistake, good faith, and substantial compliance “are matters of defense best ventilated in the trial proper.” An investigation is “not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence,” the Court maintained. “It is for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof.”156 As this example illustrates, it is reasonable for an adjudicator to require that a complaint contains sufficient factual matter so that—if accepted to be true—the arbitrator can determine that the facts pleaded “plausibly give rise” to a legitimate claim.157 If the arbitrator determines that a complaint raises facts that could plausibly lead to relief, then the proceedings should continue.158 An adjudicator can also pursue matters that they determine to contain a “legitimate governmental interest”159 or when a reasonable person would believe that a complaint is true and should be pursued. In the end, an arbitrator needs to “draw on its judicial experience and common sense [in considering a motion to dismiss]”160 or in deciding to proceed. In all instances, they must document and disclose their reasoning as to why they decided to 156 Baytan v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 153945 (2003), http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/ feb2003/153945.htm. 157 See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 158 See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 159 Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 471 (U.S. 1979). 160 Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 679 (2009). 66