Calida asks SC to junk quo warranto case vs Duterte

Solicitor General Jose Calida has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the quo warranto petition filed by suspended lawyer Elly Pamatong against President Rodrigo Duterte.

In a comment recently submitted to the high court, Calida said the quo warranto case against the President lacks merit.

Pamatong, in his petition, said Duterte is not qualified to sit as President because he filed an invalid certificate of candidacy (COC) in the 2016 elections.

Calling Duterte a “usurper,” Pamatong pointed out that Duterte’s action to withdraw his COC for mayor of Davao City and later filed another COC for President is not allowed by law.

“Under the law, a candidate who withdrews his COC for one position cannot thereafter file a COC for another position,” said Pamatong.

Pamatong told the high court that Duterte lacked the constitutional authority to “represent the government in any capacity” because his COC was filed late and was “never approved” by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) en banc.

READ: Pamatong asks SC to oust Duterte via quo warranto

Calida, however, called Pamatong’s action as a “nuisance petition” consisting of “false allegations.”

He also urged the high court to act against Pamatong because he “deplorably trivialized the rules of procedure.”

The Solicitor General added that Pamatong may also be “held liable for indirect contempt without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions.”

In the 2016 polls, Duterte was a “substitute candidate” for PDP-Laban partymate Martin Diño.

The Comelec en banc accepted Duterte’s candidacy, as a substitute for then anti-crime advocate and now Interior undersecretary Diño, in December 2015

“The Comelec resolution affirming the certificate of candidacy of President Duterte as valid and effective has attained finality and can no longer be assailed,” Calida argued in the comment.

“The position of the Comelec on the controversy involving the process taken by President Duterte in filing his COC is undoubtedly in favor to its validity and effectiveness. To allege that the process was taken by respondent President Duterte in filing his COC is unlawful is misleading and obviously without basis,” he added.

The solicitor general also stressed that the Comelec had the authority to make its own rules under Article IX-A and Article IX-C, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution.

“The COC of President Duterte was acknowledged and accepted by Comelec through its Resolution No. 10028. Although four petitions were filed challenging President Duterte’s qualifications, these cases were all dismissed by the Comelec first division in its Resolution dated Feb.3, 2016,” said Calida.

The Solicitor-General added that while the Comelec has yet to issue a ruling with finality on the appeal of the first division’s decision when Duterte won the presidential race, “it does not impede the status of President Duterte as an official presidential candidate as there was no pronouncement of disqualification against him.”

Moreover, Calida pointed out that Duterte’s election by an overwhelming margin over his opponents can no longer be disturbed.

“Settled is the rule that an election expresses the sovereign will of the people… In the case at bar, the Filipino people have spoken. In the 2016 national elections, President Duterte took a ‘landslide victory’ by way if 16,601,997 votes,” Calida said.

READ: SC gives Duterte 10 days to answer quo warranto petition

It was Calida who initiated the quo warranto case against former chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

Calida said that under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, “a quo warranto pleading may be brought in behalf of the Philippine republic against, among others, a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise.

There was a one-year prescription from the time the alleged unqualified official took office to the filing of a quo warranto petition for his or her ouster.

But the high court, in its May 11 decision that granted the quo warranto against Sereno, said the one-year prescription period on quo warranto cases applies to private citizens and only the OSG is exempted. /ee

READ: Duterte ‘happy to step down’ if SC favors quo warranto against him