9/23/2020 G.R. No. 153945 The COMELEC is empowered in Section 2(6), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution to "prosecute cases of violations of election laws." The prosecution of election law violators involves the exercise of the COMELEC’s administrative powers. Thus, the COMELEC en banc can directly approve the recommendation of its Law Department to file the criminal information for double registration against petitioners in the instant case. There is no constitutional requirement that the filing of the criminal information be first decided by any of the divisions of the COMELEC. In sum, the second sentence of Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution is not applicable in administrative cases, like the instant case where the COMELEC is determining whether probable cause exists to charge petitioners for violation of the provision of the Election Code prohibiting double registration. Indeed, the COMELEC acted in accordance with Section 9(b), Rule 34 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure governing the prosecution of election offenses in meeting en banc in the first instance and acting on the recommendation of Investigating Officer Ravanzo to file charges against petitioners. The rule reads: "SEC. 9. Duty of the Law Department, State Prosecutor, Provincial or City Fiscal Upon Receipt of Records. – xxx (b). In cases investigated by the lawyers or the field personnel of the Commission, the Director of the Law Department shall review and evaluate the recommendation of said legal officer, prepare a report and make a recommendation to the Commission affirming, modifying or reversing the same which shall be included in the agenda of the succeeding meeting en banc of the Commission. If the Commission approves the filing of an information against the respondent/s, the Director of the Law Department shall prepare and sign the information for immediate filing with the appropriate court." (Emphasis supplied) Minute Resolution No. 00-2281 was issued during the en banc meeting held on November 9, 2000 to resolve the recommendation of Ravanzo in the case. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr. and Azcuna, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1 Filed under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 2 Rollo, pp. 20-26. 3 Rollo, pp. 34-36. 4 Pimentel, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 289 SCRA 586 (1998). 5 Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio, 278 SCRA 769 (1997). 6 Allado v. Diokno, 232 SCRA 192 (1994). 7 Pimentel, Jr., supra, see note 4. 8 Cruz v. People, 233 SCRA 439 (1995). 9 Ibid. 10 Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code provides: SEC. 265. Prosecution. – The Commission shall, through its duly authorized legal officers, have the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Code, and to prosecute the same. The Commission may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government: Provided, however, That in the event that the Commission fails to act on any complaint within four months from his filing, the complainant may file the complaint with the office of the fiscal or with the Ministry of Justice for proper investigation and prosecution, if warranted. 11 LUIS B. REYES, The Revised Penal Code, 12th Ed., 1981, p. 828. 12 Arambulo v. Laqui, Sr., 342 SCRA 740 (2000). https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_153945_2003.html 5/7