The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition filed by suspended lawyer and perennial presidential candidate Elly Pamatong against President Rodrigo Duterte.
In a resolution dated Jan. 22, the high court denied Pamatong’s petition seeking to nullify Duterte’s presidential victory in 2016 on two grounds: the one–year prescription period for the filing of such action had lapsed and Pamatong did not have the legal standing to file the petition.
Pamatong filed his petition on June 6, 2018, or only a few days short of the two years since Duterte’s inauguration.
“Therefore, Petitioner’s cause of action, if any, had already lapsed and may no longer be revived,” the high court said.
But the tribunal waived the prescription period when it ruled to grant the quo warranto petition of Solicitor General Jose Calida that led to the ousting of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno last year, with the Court saying the prescription does not lie against the State, or the OSG in that case.
“However, this principle does not apply in cases where private individuals, in their own capacity, bring actions for quo warranto before the court to assert their right to the office allegedly usurped,” the high court said in dismissing Pamatong’s plea.
With this, the high court also narrowed the opportunity to file a quo warranto petition against Duterte since it said private individuals could file if they had an uncontroverted claim, but that one-year prescription would apply for them.
In ruling that Pamatong had no legal standing, the high court said that under the Rules of Court, the general rule was that only the government may bring such a suit with the exception that an individual may be allowed to file an action for quo warranto when such an individual had an uncontroverted claim to the position from which ouster was being sought.
The high court said Pamatong’s certificate of candidacy for the 2016 presidential elections had been disapproved by the Commission on Elections as he was found to be a nuisance candidate. His disqualification was affirmed by the high court with finality on Jan. 12, 2016.
“There is therefore no factual basis for petitioner’s assertion of a personal claim to the position of President. He was not even included in the lineup of candidates for the 2016 elections,” the high court said.
In his plea, Pamatong argued that Duterte’s substitution for Martin Diño as PDP-Laban standard bearer in 2016 was defective, as Diño ticked the position of mayor for Pasay City instead of president in his COC.
Citing Comelec records, Pamatong also said that prior to the 2016 polls, Duterte withdrew his COC for mayor in Davao City and, thereafter, filed another COC for another position, or for the position of the presidency though he explained that this process was not allowed by law.
