MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed the quo warranto petition of suspended lawyer Elly Pamatong against President Rodrigo Duterte.

In a notice sent to media on Wednesday, February 13, the en banc said it voted on January 22 to dismiss the quo warranto petition that sought to nullify Duterte’s presidential win in 2016. The voting had yet to be clarified by the Public Information Office (PIO).

Pamatong argued that Duterte’s substitution for Martin Diño as PDP-Laban standard bearer in 2016 was defective, as Diño ticked the position of mayor instead of president in the second page of his form. 

Ruling of the Court 

The High Court junked the petition on two main grounds:

1. Pamatong does not have the legal standing to file the petition
2. The one-year prescription period has lapsed

The en banc cited Section 1, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court which states that a quo warranto petition is an action by the government against individuals.

In ousting former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, it was the government through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) which pursued the petition.

“As the sole exception to the general rule that only the Government may bring such a suit, an individual may be allowed to file an action for quo warranto when such an individual, in his own name, has an uncontroverted claim to the position from which the ouster is sought,” said the en banc.

In Pamatong’s case, his uncontroverted claim could come from a legitimate candidacy for the presidency in 2016, but the SC said the Commission on Elections disapproved the suspended lawyer’s certificate of candidacy.

“There is therefore no factual basis for petitioner’s assertion of a personal claim to the position of President. He was not even included in the lineup of candidates for the 2016 elections,” the High Court said. 

The SC also said that the one-year prescription period has lapsed for Pamatong to file the quo warranto petition. Section 11 of Rule 77 states that the action shall commence within one year of the person taking office.

The prescription period was waived in the case of Sereno. In that landmark ruling, the Supreme Court majority said that prescription does not lie against the State, or the OSG in that case.

“However, this principle does not apply in cases where private individuals, in their own capacity, bring actions for quo warranto before the court to assert their right to the office allegedly usurped,” said the Supreme Court.

By ruling this way, the Supreme Court narrows the opportunity to file a quo warranto petition against Duterte. The ruling says private individuals may file if they have an uncontroverted claim, but that prescription will apply for them.

Duterte has been in office for nearly 3 years, way past the prescription period; and makes the “petitioner’s cause of action, if any, had already lapsed and may no longer be revived,” according to the ruling. – Rappler.com