Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Memorandum For Quo Warranto of Vice-Mayor Miguel Vs Mayor Eliordo U Ogena of Koronadal City
Memorandum For Quo Warranto of Vice-Mayor Miguel Vs Mayor Eliordo U Ogena of Koronadal City
Memorandum
on
PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO
1|Page
The Summary of the Positions of the Parties
2|Page
This is a case different and totally distinct compared
against the Petition for Quo Warranto under the Omnibus
Election Code.
3|Page
The Distinction Between
the Quo Warranto Proceeding Under Rule 66
and
the Quo Warranto Under the Omnibus Election Code
Quo Warranto
Under Rule 66
4|Page
The ground is the lack of qualification to be elected into an
elective office.
And that this Quo Warranto petition under Rule 66 does not
involve issue on election and qualification of a candidate for
election.
The one who can file an action against the person subject
of the quo warranto is a defeated candidate or any voter in the
locality where the person being questioned was running for
election.
Additional basis
for this Quo Warranto
5|Page
It is therefore very clear that this law, the Local Government
Code, does not state that these grounds can be used only as
part of the election qualification issues under the Omnibus
Election Code.
Section 60 reads:
6|Page
Section 40 constitute other grounds provided in this Local
Government Code of 1990.
The Issues
7|Page
year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving
sentence;
The Discussions
8|Page
of the term of office of all elected officials for the term 2019 to
2022.
As such, it is only on that day, June 30, 2019, that the period
of one year to file this action shall be counted from.
From June 30, 2019, the last day for the petitioner to file this
Petition for Quo Warranto ends on June 29, 2020.
The fact that this Petition for Quo Warranto was filed before
June 29, 2020 means that this present petition was timely filed.
9|Page
At that period of ten days from the proclamation of the
respondent, only Pingoy had the primary right to file that quo
warranto under the Omnibus Election Code.
Now, the filing of this petition for quo warranto against the
respondent is founded on the fact that he was convicted by the
Supreme Court by final judgment for engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct in notarizing documents
and removed at the same time from the Office of the Notary
Public.
10 | P a g e
For clarity, the ruling of the Supreme Court in Erlinda Sistual,
Flordelisa S. Leysa, Leonisa S. Espabo and Arlan Sistual vs Atty.
Eliordo Ogena, A.C. No. 9807, February 2, 2016, is quoted in toto:
11 | P a g e
There is no doubt hereto that two of the grounds
enumerated in Section 40 of the Local Government Code,
namely:
Aside from his removal from the office of the Notary Public,
the respondent is also disqualified in the sense that he was
sentenced by final judgment to an offense involving moral
turpitude and that this sentence decreed by the Supreme Court
pronounced him guilty of a dishonest, immoral and deceitful
conduct.
12 | P a g e
Again, the law does not distinguish as to what kind of
offense, wither administrative or criminal.
13 | P a g e
material misrepresentation in the filing of his certificate of
candidacy.
14 | P a g e
To reiterate, under Section 40 of the Local Government
Code of 1991, paragraph b, those removed from office as a
result of an administrative case are disqualified from running for
elective position.
Additional
Argument
The Prayer
15 | P a g e
Other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for. 12
February 2020. Manila for Koronadal City.
By:
Explanation
CC:
16 | P a g e