Petitioner in DQ case vs Duterte no-show in hearing

Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO/LYN RILLON

Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO/LYN RILLON

The petitioner who is seeking to disqualify presidential aspirant and Davao City mayor Rodrigo Duterte for next year’s presidential elections failed to show up on the hearing set by the Commission on Elections’ (Comelec) First Division Tuesday morning.

With the failure of broadcaster Ruben Castor and his lawyer Oliver Lozano to attend the hearing, Duterte’s lawyers, Vitaliano Aguirre and Ted Contacto, moved that the petition be submitted for resolution.

At a televised press briefing, Comelec chair Andres Bautista said that Castor and his counsel did not attend Tuesday’s hearing “because they are not needed to be present.”

Duterte’s lawyers, on their part, said that they pushed for the submission of the petition for resolution because of a provision in the Comelec’s summon which states that “should respondent or authorized counsel fail to appear, the petition shall be deemed submitted for resolution.”

READ: DQ case raised as Duterte files COC in Comelec

The mayor’s camp said that they did not approve with the suggestion of the division to proceed with the marking of evidence, saying that it would be a “mockery of the proceedings.”

Bautista said that the first division will deliberate on the Castor petition on Wednesday, and on Thursday, Dec. 17, the Comelec en banc will decide on the validity of Duterte’s substitution.

READ: Duterte-Diño case still awaits Comelec ruling

Castor filed an eight-page petition last Nov. 27 asking the poll body not to give due course to Duterte’s substitution of former Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) standard-bearer Martin Diño because of an erroneous entry in his certificate of candidacy (COC).

The broadcaster was referring to the entry in Diño’s COC where he indicated that he is vying for Pasay City mayor instead of the presidency, rendering the COC “void, legally inexistent and without legal effect.” IDL

Read more...