SC ruling on Pamatong’s quo warranto plea vs Duterte affirms Palace’s stance that it’s baseless – Panelo

February 13, 2019

Malacanang said on Wednesday the decision of the Supreme Court dismissing the quo warranto petition seeking the ouster of President Rodrigo Duterte has validated its stance that it was baseless.

In the en banc decision, the high court said suspended lawyer Elly Pamatong lacks legal standing and his quo warranto petition already prescribed.

"We note that the Supreme Court has already dismissed the petition for quo warranto filed by Atty. Elly Pamatong against President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, which sought to oust the Chief Executive from his position due to a supposed election technicality in 2016," said Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo in a statement.

"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," said Panelo, also the chief presidential legal counsel.

He said the Palace agrees with the Supreme Court's grounds for dismissal.

The court rejected Pamatong's plea since it was filed in June 2018, almost two years since Duterte assumed the presidency on June 30, 2016. The prescriptive period is one year.

As to Pamatong's filing of the case, the Court said he lacks legal standing since under a quo warranto petition, it is only the Solicitor General on behalf of the government or an individual who has "a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy" who could do it.

Echoing the court's ruling, Panelo said, "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."

"In the instant case, Atty. 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. His allegation that he assumed the Presidency last June 30, 2016 is nothing but fantasy," he stressed.

The Commission on Elections declared Pamatong a nuisance candidate after filing a certificate of candidacy for president.

As regards the issue of prescription, Panelo reiterated the court's decision that Rule 66 of the Rules of Court is categorical when it mandates that a quo warranto petition must be commenced within one year after the cause of such ouster or the right of the claimant to hold such office arose.

"(H)ence 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 (Duterte) was inaugurated President last June 30, 2016, prescription has indeed set in against him," he said.

"This Office 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," Panelo explained. Celerina Monte/DMS