Peace of mind for Duterte after quo warranto case dismissal

PRESIDENT Rodrigo Duterte can now focus on fulfilling his mandate to serve the country with a "peace of mind" after the Supreme Court junked the "baseless" quo warranto case filed against him by nuisance presidential candidate Elly Pamatong, MalacaƱang said on Wednesday, February 13.

"We note that the Supreme Court has already dismissed the petition for quo warranto filed by Atty. Elly Pamatong against President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, which sought to oust the Chief Executive from his position due to a supposed election technicality in 2016," Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo said.

"We have treated such petition at the outset as without basis in fact and in law. The Supreme Court has validated our view on the matter," he added.

In denying Pamatong's quo warranto case against Duterte, the high court cited lack of legal standing and the lapse of prescribed period for taking legal action.

Panelo said the executive agreed with the Supreme Court's grounds for dismissal.

With regard to the issue on legal standing, the Palace official noted that "it is only the Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, which may file a petition for quo warranto to oust a person unlawfully holding a public office, save for an individual who himself or herself claims to be entitled to such public office."

Panelo said Pamatong's claim to have won the presidency over Duterte was "nothing but fantasy."

"In the instant case, Atty. Pamatong did not bring the case under the name of the Republic of the Philippines, not being an official of the Government. Neither can he be classified as an individual who has a claim to the seat of the Presidency, not even being a legitimate candidate in the 2016 elections," he said.

"His allegation that he assumed the Presidency last June 30, 2016 is nothing but fantasy," he added.

Concerning the issue of prescription, Panelo cited Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, stating that "a quo warranto petition must be commenced within one year after the cause of such ouster or the right of the claimant to hold such office arose."

"Hence, Atty. Pamatong cannot argue that prescription does not run against him (not being the State) and considering further that his cause of action, if at all, arose when [Duterte] was inaugurated President last June 30, 2016, prescription has indeed set in against him," he said.

"This Office believes that the purpose of prescription for private individual-initiated quo warranto cases is.. for the seated official to have repose and peace of mind after a year so he can focus on his duties without being distracted by a baseless petition for quo warranto," he added. (SunStar Philippines)

Trending

No stories found.

Just in

No stories found.

Branded Content

No stories found.
SunStar Publishing Inc.
www.sunstar.com.ph