spot_img
28.3 C
Philippines
Thursday, March 28, 2024

High court unseats Surigao solon

- Advertisement -

The Supreme Court has ordered the ouster of Congressman Philip Pichay after finding that his rival Mary Elizabeth Ty-Delgado was the rightful winner in the May 13, 2013 congressional race in the first district of Surigao del Sur.

In an en banc decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, the SC  reversed and set aside the resolutions dated March 18, 2015 and  Aug. 3, 2015 of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal upholding the proclamation of Pichay as the duly elected representative of the first district of Surigao del Sur.

Instead, the SC declared Delgado as the winner for the position of member of the House of Representatives representing the First District of the province in the last local elections.   

Considering that the term of the present House of Representatives will end on   June 30, 2016, its decision is “final and executory,” the tribunal said.

Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco, Diosdado Peralta and Lucas Bersamin did not take part in the voting, as they were members of the HRET.

- Advertisement -

“The Court found that the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion when it failed to disqualify respondent Pichay for his conviction for libel, a crime involving moral turpitude. Since Pichay’s ineligibility existed on the day he filed his Certificate of Candidacy, he was never a valid candidate for the position and his votes are considered stray votes. Thus, the qualified candidate for the position of Member of the House for the First Legislative District for Surigao del Sur who received the highest number of valid votes shall be declared the winner. Based on the Provincial Canvass Report, that person is petitioner Mary Elizabeth Ty-Delgado,” the SC said, in its decision.

Delgado had sought the disqualification of Pichay under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code on the ground that  the latter had been convicted of libel, a crime involving moral turpitude.

She asserted that when respondent Pichay paid the fine on Feb. 17, 2011, the five-year period barring him to be a candidate had yet to lapse.

In his defense, Pichay admitted the libel convictions, but claimed, among others, that libel was not a crime involving moral turpitude and that he did not perform the acts that constituted libel and that his liability arose only out of his being publisher of the publishing company.

Pichay was earlier proclaimed as the winner in the congressional race after obtaining a total of 76,870 votes.

In its 2015 decision, the HRET concluded that Pichay had no hand in writing the libelous publication and thus the convictions were not for a crime involving moral turpitude.

In ruling against Pichay, the SC disagreed with the HRET decision, and ruled to reverse and set aside its decision on the grounds  that he is disqualified under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Citing its previous ruling, the SC held that   libel is a crime involving moral turpitude.

Noting that Pichay had admitted the convictions for libel, the tribunal noted that another libelous article had been published after the filing of the complaint, which indicates malice.

According to the tribunal, the law provides that all those charged with libel shall be punished to the same extent, thus leaving no room for differentiation.    

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles