spot_img
27.9 C
Philippines
Friday, April 19, 2024

Albay Gov. Rosal files petition vs. DQ ruling

- Advertisement -

Albay Gov. Noel Rosal has filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to stop the Commission on Elections (Comelec) from implementing an en banc resolution disqualifying him as the duly elected governor of the province.

Rosal’s petition for certiorari included a plea for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction by the High Court against the poll body.

Rosal is contesting the move by the Comelec en banc which affirmed an earlier resolution by the poll body’s First Division which disqualified him from running for the position of governor in the May 2022 elections based on a complaint filed by a certain Joseph Armogila.

In his petition, Rosal alleged that the Comelec had deprived him of his “constitutional right to due process” after the poll body denied his motion to reset “hearing on the preliminary conference despite justifiable grounds”. Rosal also said that the poll body had issued the disqualification ruling based on “mere allegations” and despite the failure of Armogila to “adduce evidence” that Rosal had actually disbursed funds during a period specified by the Omnibus Election Code.

Rosal also asked the High Court to determine a possible “grave abuse of discretion” on the part of the poll body when the latter issued the ruling in question.

- Advertisement -

The earlier move by the Comelec First Division to disqualify Rosal fueled mass protests in Albay province and Legazpi City led by church and civic leaders. Legazpi Bishop Joel Baylon had asked the poll body to “respect the people’s will” and aired concerns that the move to disqualify Rosal is backed by business and political interests involved in massive quarrying activities in the province.

The Commission on Elections (Comelec) on Friday denied the motion for reconsideration (MR) filed by Albay Governor Noel Rosal in the petition for disqualification filed by defeated Legazpi City candidate for councilor, Joseph Armogila.

The Comelec en banc said it “found no cogent reason to reverse the findings” of the Comelec First Division in September.
Comelec spokesperson John Rex Laudiangco said the decision of the en banc is final but Rosal may elevate the matter to the Supreme Court (SC) “via a reasonably filed petition for certiorari.”

“The en banc’s decision is final, but has yet to become final and executory,” he said in a statement. “A certificate of finality and a writ of execution will ensue.”

The ruling stated that the MR “neither contains any new matter or issues, nor was it able to establish that the Assailed Resolution was based on insufficient evidence or that the same is contrary to law.”

Section 1, Rule 19 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure cites two grounds for an MR to be denied: the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision, order or ruling; or the decision, order or ruling is contrary to the law.

The MR sought to assail the Resolution of the Division, promulgated on Sept. 19, which granted the petition to disqualify Rosal.

The First Division did not find Rosal liable for vote buying but was in violation of Section 261(v) of the Omnibus Election Code, which prohibits the release and disbursement or expenditure of public funds during the 45-day election ban.
It added that Rosal’s act of giving cash assistance to tricycles and senior citizens in Legazpi City was without prior authority from the Comelec.

Rosal’s wife, Legazpi City Mayor Geraldine Rosal, was likewise ordered disqualified by the Comelec for the same offense.

Mayor Rosal previously said the decision came as a surprise, especially the portion where she was found guilty because of “indispensable cooperation” in the distribution of the cash assistance while Governor Rosal was still Legazpi mayor.

“It is settled in law that a person becomes a principal by indispensable cooperation when he performs an act, without which the offense would not have been accomplished,” she said in an interview in October. “I cannot fathom how my alleged appearance during the questioned event was indispensable, considering that it would have pushed through just the same with or without my appearance.”

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles