|
Friday, December 08, 2006
Court bars suspended mayor's return to office
By Ernie N. Olson Jr.
BAGUIO CITY -- The Court of Appeals (CA) rejected the request of suspended Mayor Braulio Yaranon to return to office before the expiration of his three-year term.
In a resolution dated November 29, the CA denied Yaranon's petition for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction.
Sun.Star Network Online's 12th Asean Summit Watch
Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr., chairman of the CA Special 12th Division, said they found no sufficient basis to grant the mayor's plea.
He explained that in the case of Governor Benjamin Espiritu versus Nelson Melgar and Judge Marciano Virola, the Supreme Court (SC) held that as a general rule, the office or the body that is invested with the power of removal or suspension should be the sole judge of the necessity and sufficiency of the cause.
Named as respondents in Yaranon's petition were Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno, among others.
In an order dated June 26 this year and a resolution dated August 22, Puno directed the mayor to desist from further exercising the powers and performing the duties, functions, and responsibilities of the Office of the City Mayor of Baguio for a period of 12 months and for Vice Mayor Reinaldo Bautista Jr. to take over pursuant to Section 46(a) of the Local Government Code (LGC).
The mayor, in support of his request for injunctive relief, asserted that his continued suspension from office "to which he was overwhelmingly voted by the electorate (of Baguio) defeats the sovereign and popular will, and (will) prove prejudicial and inimical to public interest and welfare."
Yaranon also argued that "the illegal and unwarranted imposition" of a total of 12-month suspension, when he only has 10 months remaining in his term, deprives him of due process.
Even if he were acquitted, his right to hold office had been nullified, he added.
But Sabio said a writ of preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy that may be resorted to by litigants, only to protect or preserve their rights or interests during the pendency of the principal action. He further clarified that for them to authorize a temporary injunction, the plaintiff must show a right to the final relief.
"Moreover, (plaintiff) must show that the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial, and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Injunction is not designed to protect future rights. It is not proper when the complainant's right is doubtful or disputed," he added. (Sun.Star Baguio/Sunnex)
For more Philippine news, visit Sun.Star Cagayan de Oro. (December 8, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
|
|
[return to top]
[home]
|
|
American holds, deports US activist on way to Cebu