Skip to main content

POE, Jr. vs. Arroyo, PET case no. 0002, March 29, 2005

FACTS: Fernando Poe Jr. (FPJ) filed an election protest at the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) against the proclaimed winner of the 2004 presidential elections. During the pendency of the case, FPJ died. His widow, Susan Roces, claimed before the PET that there was an urgent need for her to substitute her husband in the election protest that he had filed as it is of paramount interest to the Filipino people.

ISSUE: May the widow substitute/intervene for the protestant who died during the pendency of the latter’s presidential protest case?

RULING: No. The fundamental rule applicable in a presidential election protest is Rule 14 of the PET Rules. It provides that only the registered candidate for President or Vice President of the Philippines who has received the second or third highest number of votes may timely contest the election of the proclaimed winner. Furthermore, a public office is personal to the public officer and is not a property capable of being transmitted to his heirs upon his death. A real party in interest is the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment, and the party who is entitled to the avails of the suit. Thus, Susan Roces, is not a real-party-in-interest to the election protest of her husband FPJ.

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Senate vs. Ermita , GR 169777, April 20, 2006

Senate vs. Ermita , GR 169777, April 20, 2006 FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition proffer that the President has abused power by issuing E.O. 464 “Ensuring Observance of the Principles of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the Rule on Executive Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under the Constitution, and for Other Purposes”. Petitioners pray for its declaration as null and void for being unconstitutional. In the exercise of its legislative power, the Senate of the Philippines, through its various Senate Committees, conducts inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation which call for, inter alia, the attendance of officials and employees of the executive department, bureaus, and offices including those employed in Government Owned and Controlled Corporations, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the Philippine National Police (PNP). The Committee of the Senate issued inv...
3 comments
Read more

Pimentel vs. COMELEC GR 161658, Nov. 3, 2003

Facts: Congress passed RA 9165, Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and makes it mandatory for candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses, among other personalities, to undergo a drug test. Hence, Senator Pimentel, who is a senatorial candidate for the 2004 synchronized elections, challenged Section 36(g) of the said law. Issue: is the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office an unconstitutional imposition of additional qualification on candidates for Senator? Held: Yes. Section 36 (g) of RA 9165, requiring all candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government undergo a mandatory drug test is UNCONSITUTIONAL. Under Sec.3, Art. VI of the Constitution, an aspiring candidate for Senator needs only to meet 5 qualifications: (1) citizenship, (2) voter registration, (...
Post a Comment
Read more

Soco vs. Hon. Militante, et al. June 28, 1983 [GRN 58961 June 28, 1983]

FACTS: The plaintiff-appellee-Soco (lessor) and the defendant-appellant-Francisco (lessee) entered into a contract of lease on for commercial building and lot for a monthly rental of P800.00 for a period of 10 years renewable for another 10 years at the option of the lessee. One time, Francisco noticed that Soco did not anymore send her collector for the payment of rentals and at times there were payments made but no receipts were issued. Soon after Soco learned that Francisco sub-leased a portion of the building to NACIDA, at a monthly rental of more than P3,000.00 which is definitely very much higher than what Francisco was paying to Soco under the Contract of Lease, the latter felt that she was on the losing end of the lease agreement so she tried to look for ways and means to terminate the contract. Taking into account the factual background setting of this case, the Court holds that there was in fact a tender of payment of the rentals made by Francisco to Soco through Comtrust an...
Post a Comment
Read more