If an election protest is decided against the proclaimed winner who already assumed office, can he stay the execution of the decision pending appeal on the sole ground of disruption of public service since he may eventually win the appeal?
Decisions of the courts in election protest cases resulting as they do from a judicial evaluation of the ballots and after full blown adversarial proceedings should at least be given similar worth and recognition as the decisions of the board of canvassers. This is especially true when attended by equally weighty circumstances of the case such as shortness of the term of the contested elective office.
Similarly in this case the COMELEC should have accorded respect and weight to the RTC decision proclaiming Jess as winner since it was based on the evidence presented by the parties, the expert testimonies of NBI experts and it own evaluation and findings on the contested ballots. Aside from these, the RTC also laid down the superior circumstances necessitating the grant of execution pending appeal pursuant to the standards set by Section 11, Rule 14 of A.M. 07-4-15-SC, in the grant or denial of execution pending appeal.
The “disruption of public service” cannot per se be a basis to deny execution pending appeal. Such disruption necessarily results from any order allowing execution pending appeal that has already been weighed and factored in by the SC when it promulgated the above Rule allowing such execution.
No comments:
Post a Comment