Court junks Petition of Tupas aide on '08 budget, backs SP stance on Capitol vacancy
For lack of merit, the Special Civil Action Case filed by a close aide of Governor Niel Tupas Sr. has been denied by the Court.
As such, an Order was issued dismissing the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus, Injunction with Prayer for Preliminary Mandatory and/or Prohibitory Injunction and/or Restraining Order.
Petitioner was Manuel Mejorada with respondents, Governor Niel Tupas Sr., entire members of the 9th Iloilo Sanggunian Panlalawigan (SP) headed by Vice Governor Rolex Suplico and the Regional Director of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).
Docketed as Special Civil Action No. 08-29635, the Order obtained by The News Today (TNT) further found merit on the arguments presented by the SP body.
In a 7-paged Order, Branch 31 6th Regional Trial Court (RTC) Presiding Judge Rene Hortillo summed up his Decision with a complete denial of Mejorada's Petition.
The case stemmed from the now highly-controversial Capitol Executive Budget, slashed by the 9th SP body. Among the major cuts was Mejorada's position and corresponding budget allocation stating such was "unconstitutional and illegal."
The Court after hearing the SP reply gave full credence stating that the petitioner has no appointment after June 30, 2007.
"Therefore, the position of the Provincial Administrator as of date could only be considered as vacant," excerpts of the Order went. "Furthermore, the petitioner cannot now lay claim on suffering grave and irreparable injury. Having no new appointment as Provincial Administrator, he has therefore no clear, legal, vested and positive right thereto which is a requisite element that is, the right en esse that must exist before one can ask for relief."
Judge Hortillo further addressed the issue taking note of how the DBM still has the Budget under review.
"On the basis of the foregoing findings and discussions, this Court does not see any commission by the Sanggunian Panlalawigan of any grave abuse of discretion in the passage into an Ordinance what is now known as Appropriation Ordinance No. 2008-01-a nor any ground why it should issue any preliminary injunction in favor of the petitioner as against the defendants," the Order stated.