Under Philippine law, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) is authorized not only to administer and enforce election laws, but also to conduct preliminary investigations of alleged criminal violations of those laws, and to prosecute such cases — a function which is statutory, constitutional, and affirmed by Supreme Court jurisprudence.
The constitutional basis is Article IX-C, Section 2, paragraph (6) of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that COMELEC shall have power to “investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.” Kilosbayan, Inc. vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 128054, Oct. 1997) confirms that this constitutional grant is real and substantive.
Statutorily, Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) explicitly states that 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.” It also allows COMELEC to avail itself of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of government. Under the implementing COMELEC Rules of Procedure (Rule 34, Section-2), provincial/city prosecutors (and their assistants), as well as state prosecutors, are given continuing authority to act as deputies of COMELEC in conducting such preliminary investigations and prosecutions — but that authority is derivative: it depends on COMELEC’s delegation and is subject to withdrawal.
Supreme Court decisions have consistently upheld that COMELEC’s Law Department is empowered to perform preliminary investigations of election offenses, and to initiate prosecutions. For example, in Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. COMELEC, the Court discussed Section 265 and held that COMELEC is the public prosecutor with exclusive authority to conduct preliminary investigations and prosecute election offenses under the Omnibus Election Code — with the deputized assistance of prosecutors where authorized. Also, in G.R. No. 170447 (2009), the Court reiterated that the Chief State Prosecutor and city/provincial prosecutors act only within the scope of authority delegated by COMELEC under Rule 34.
Importantly, an amendment by Republic Act No. 9369 (which amended Section 265) changed the wording to make power to conduct preliminary investigations concurrent among COMELEC and other prosecuting arms, rather than purely exclusive. Under that law, other prosecuting arms (including the DOJ via its prosecutors) may investigate and prosecute election offenses concurrently. Thus, while COMELEC continues to have constitutional and statutory authority, the DOJ is not entirely excluded; but the DOJ’s participation depends on the legal framework and whether the power is properly exercised.
CONCLUSION
COMELEC’s Law Department is empowered by law to conduct preliminary investigations of criminal violations of election laws and to prosecute them. The Department of Justice (DOJ) does not have an exclusive power in this realm; its role is either (a) by deputation / delegation under COMELEC, or (b) under concurrent authority after legal amendments (e.g. RA 9369) when conditions are met.
Hence, in any given case, COMELEC has the primary mandate; the DOJ may act, but only in accordance with law (delegation, concurrence, or residual jurisdiction under circumstances defined in statute).
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/kilosbayan-inc-v-commission-on-elections?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_199082_2012.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_170447_2009.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_199082_2012.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Assisted by ChatGPT AI, October 5, 2025.
