Palace welcomes SC dismissal of Pamatong petition vs Duterte

MANILA, Philippines — Malacañang on Wednesday welcomed the ruling of the Supreme Court dismissing the quo warranto petition against President Rodrigo Duterte.

The petition was filed by lawyer Elly Pamatong, a perennial nuisance candidate, in June 2018. But the high court junked it, citing the one-year prescription period for the filing of a quo warranto petition had lapsed and that Pamatong had no legal standing to file the petition.

READ: SC dismisses quo warranto petition vs Duterte

“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,” presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo said in a statement.

“With regard to the issue on legal standing, 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 added. “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,” Panelo said. “His allegation that he assumed the Presidency last June 30, 2016 is nothing but fantasy.”

“As regards the issue of prescription,” Panelo, who is also chief legal counsel of the President, said: “”Rule 66 of the Rules of Court is categorical when it mandates that a quo warranto petition must be commenced within one (1) 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 PRRD was inaugurated President last June 30, 2016, prescription has indeed set in against him.”

According to Panelo, Malacañang believes “that the purpose of prescription for private individual-initiated quo warranto cases is not just for such person to be unmindful on his or her purported claims to the office and then untimely muddles the current order through an action but more importantly 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.” /atm