CONTEMPT CHARGE VERSUS BRILLANTES, COMELEC COMs FILED BY ALAM AT SUPREME COURT


CONTEMPT CHARGE VERSUS 
BRILLANTES, COMELEC COMs
FILED BY ALAM AT SUPREME COURT

 
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila



ALAB NG MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM)
represented by ATTY. BERTENI
CATALUÑA CAUSING,
Petitioner,

-versus-                                                          G.R. No. 204139
                                                                        [From: SPP NO. 12-127 (PL)]
                                                                       

COMMISSION ELECTIONS,
Respondent,
x--------------------------------------------------------x


(NOTE: FOR EFFICIENT USE OF PAPER, THE PETITIONER DECIDED NOT TO WRITE ALL OTHER CASE TITLES AND CASE NUMBERS. THIS CASE WAS CONSOLIDATED TO ALL OTHER PETITIONS FILED BY PARTYLIST ORGANIZATIONS WHOSE APPLICATION FOR ACCREDIATIONS WERE DENIED BY THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS)



Motion to Cite Comelec
in Contempt
with
Motion to Consolidate Into This Case “Urgent Petition for Certiorari with Extremely Urgent Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)” Docketed G.R. No. _______________


            The petitioner, by the undersigned counsel-representative, respectfully file this Motion to City the Commission on Elections Chairman and Commissioners in Contempt for BLATANT VIOLATIONS of the Status Quo order issued by the Court in a joint Resolution dated December 4, 2012 in a consolidated case that included this petition docketed General Registry No. 204139.

            Sought to be cited in contempt are:

1.      Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr.;
2.      Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento;
3.      Commissioner Lucenito N. Tagle;
4.      Commissioner Armando C. Velasco;
5.      Commissioner Elias R. Yusoph;
6.      Commissioner Christian Robert S. Lim; and
7.      Commissioner Ma. Gracia Cielo M. Padaca.

All these Chairman and Commissioners of the respondent Comelec can be served with notices at their offices at 8th Floor, Palacio del Gobernador, General Luna St. corner Andres Soriano St., Intramuros, Manila.

To put it directly, despite the clarity of the meaning of the phrase “STATUS QUO”, it being easy to understand even by high school student, the individual persons composing the public respondent BLATANTLY DISOBEYED the “STATUS QUO ORDERS.”

The BLATANT DISOBEDIENCE TO THE SUPREME COURT was committed NOT ONLY ONCE BUT 13 TIMES!

This is so blatant because these COMELEC OFFICIALS DELIBERATELY DID IT.

These Comelec officials deliberately did it because they are charged with the knowledge as to the plain and ordinary meaning of STATUS QUO order, which means preservation of all things that existed prior the denial by the Comelec of the applications for.  Yet they proceeded with the act of doing the same.

The act of committing disobedience to the orders of the HIGHEST COURT in the land was done in the most abhorrent and most revolting manner.

They did it without even giving the petitioner and the 12 other similarly-situated groups a chance to explain why the “LUCKY 13” partylist groups denied by the Comelec but whose petitions with the Supreme Court were issued with Status Quo orders.

Not only without due process. These officials of the Commission did it in a manner of exceeding dispatch in order for them to succeed in their malicious design or predetermination to disqualify Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM) and the rest of the “Lucky 13.”

On January 4, 2013, ALAM was notified to participate in the raffle and was in fact allowed to draw lots.  Its secretary general, Edwin R. Alcala was the one who drew the number and he got Slot No. 34.

While the drawing of lots was yet drawing to a close in the afternoon of January 4, 2013, Chairman Brillantes already announced that it was a big blunder that the “Lucky 13” was included in the raffle.  Right there and then, he announced to the media that he will schedule an en banc session for the purpose of excluding ALAM and 12 others.

January 4 was a Friday and he got no more time.  In the morning of Monday, January 7, 2013, he made true his announcement: they promulgated Resolution No. 9604, excluding ALAM and 12 others on the ground that these should be excluded on the basis of their Resolution No. 9591 promulgated on 19 December 2012.  A copy of the same can be downloaded from the Comelec website at this particular link: http://www.comelec.gov.ph/uploads/Elections/2013natloc/res/com_res_9591.pdf.

Meanwhile, a copy of Resolution No. 9604 can be downloaded from this link: http://www.comelec.gov.ph/uploads/Elections/2013natloc/res/com_res_9604.pdf.

Days before this January 7 resolution was promulgated, Chairman Brillantes was issuing statements to the media that partylist groups that are in the class of ALAM, those that were denied by the Comelec but issued a Status Quo order by the Supreme Court cannot participate in the raffle unless these can obtain a MANDATORY INJUNCTION from the High Court.

That he did despite his knowledge that IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A MANDATORY INJUNCTION because this is issued only after the case is terminated.  He knew that the petitions of these “Lucky 13” groups had just been filed and the Comelec through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) had not yet even submitted its comment to the petitions of those partylist groups that have run to the Supreme Court as the last bastion of justice.

Nevertheless, although he also issued pronouncements to the media that they were confused by the meaning of Status Quo orders, he cannot feign ignorance because he is a lawyer and a bar topnotcher at that.

All the other commissioners aside from Commissioner Padaca are topnotch lawyers, too. As such, it is impossible for them not to understand the legal meaning of Status Quo order.

If at all, they intentionally did that act of promulgating Resolution No. 9604.

Not only that, the Comelec officials are also CHARGED WITH THE KNOWLEDGEE of the existence of Resolution No. 9467 that they promulgated on 15 June 2012.  A copy of which can be downloaded from this site: http://www.comelec.gov.ph/?r=Elections/2013natloc/res/res9467&bn=2013+National+and+Local+Elections+|+Resolutions&b=Elections%2F2013natloc%2Fres%2FresoTOC%26toc_search%3D9467%23ps2668.

Because it was them, except for Commissioner Padaca, who promulgated Resolution No. 9467, they cannot feign ignorance of it.

Because Resolution No. 9467 was one of the status quo matters as it was existing at the time the Comelec denied ALAM and also existing at the time the Supreme Court issued its joint Resolution dated December 4, 2012 directing the Status Quo order.

Resolution No. 9467 mandated that all partylist applicants that were denied by the Comelec but have pending petition before the Supreme Court are allowed to participate in the raffle.

For convenience, Section 1 of Resolution No. 9467 is hereby quoted as follows:

SEC. 1 Requirement. – Only party-list groups/coalitions accredited by or duly registered with the Commission and which have manifested their desire to participate in the party-list election, may participate in the raffle for purposes of determining their order of listing in the ballot. However, party-list groups/coalitions whose petitions for accreditation have been denied by the Commission and have pending petitions before the Supreme Court questioning the decision of the Commission shall also be allowed to participate in the raffle.


Hence, it is very clear that the contemptuous acts of the officials of the Comelec are proven convincingly and clearly.


Motion for Consolidation


It is also prayed of the Honorable Court that ALAM’s separate petition filed as a result of this contemptuous act of the officials of the Comelec.

That separate case is entitled as above but docketed GR No. ___________.  This was separately filed because it stemmed from a separate action although related to the first docketed G.R. No. 204139.

For this, the petitioner seeks leave of the Court for the consolidation of that Second ALAM petition to the instant case already consolidated with other petitions of the other partylist groups.

WHEREFORE, it is prayed of the Honorable Court that these officials be required to show cause and thereafter be cited for contempt harsher than what was slapped in Philippine Guardian Brotherhood, Inc. vs Comelec, GR No. 190529, March 20, 2011 because this is the second time around that it disobeyed the Supreme Court.

            Other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for.  9 January 2013, Manila.
RENTA PE CAUSING SABARRE CASTRO & ASSOCIATES
Unit 1, 2368 JB Roxas St. corner Leon Guinto St., Malate, Manila
Emails: totocausing@yahoo.com, berteni.causing@gmail.com; Telephone No.: +632-3105521


By:

BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING
IBP No. 894664 / 03-20-2012 / Manila
PTR No. 0675267 / 03-27-2012 / Manila
Roll No. 60944/ MCLE Compliance No. IV-0007338, August 10, 2012




CIRILO P. SABARRE JR.
IBP No. 856677 /01-03-2012
PTR No. 117312429 /01-03-2012
Roll No. 53639 / MCLE Compliance No. IV-0003755



DERVIN V. CASTRO
IBP No. 836900/11-18-2010 up to 2012
PTR No. 0335125 /01-03-2012
Roll No. 53624 /MCLE Compliance No. IV-0007336, August 10, 2012

Cc:

Palacio del Gobernador , Gen. Lina St. Corner Soriano St., Intramuros, Manila

OFFICE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL
134 Amorsolo St., Makati City
Post a Comment

Popular Posts