The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 15 in Davao City has dismissed the quo warranto petition filed by Maria Belen Sunga Acosta for “utter lack of merit” and recognized the appointment of Leo Tereso A. Magno as the legal chair of the Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA).
Acosta filed a quo warranto petition in court questioning the method of replacing her as chair of MinDA.
“At ano ang legal na paraan para palitan ang secretary ng MinDA? Seguro pag namatay automatic vacant ang position, kung nag resign automatic vacant ang position. Halimabawa may anomalya na ginawa, hindi rin puwedeng tanggalin ng basta basta dahil meron tayong tinatawag na due process. Ang tanong meron ba akong kaso?” she said in a press conference held at her office in the 14th floor of the same building last Friday.
The resolution obtained by Edge Davao signed by presiding judge Mario Duaves on May 27, 2024 states that Acosta seeks to restrain Magno from entering the offices of MinDA and assuming the duties and responsibilities of its chairperson. She prays for the issuance of a “status quo ante” so as not to interfere, disturb, or disrupt her from performing her duties as such during the remainder of her term of office.
Acosta was appointed as chair of MinDA on January 6, 2022, by former president Rodrigo Duterte. She took her oath and assumed the position on January 13, 2022.
On May 13, 2024, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. appointed Magno as the new chair of MinDA, who then took his oath of office on May 21, 2024. Two days later, Secretary Magno reported to MinDA to submit his appointment documents along with a letter instructing the Chief Administrative Officer Cecila D. Trinio to inform and call the MinDA directors for a meeting on May 24, 2024.
Acosta lodged the quo warranto petition on the same day.
“However, she failed to secure a temporary restraining order from the Office of the Executive Judge. Thus, this omnibus motion for reconsideration. Without a doubt, this petition is resorted to in order “to prevent” the respondent from assuming the chairmanship position of MinDA. At first glance, this petition appears to be proper and tenable, but it’s not,” the resolution read.
The resolution explained that the nature and purpose of a quo warranto as a legal remedy contemplated under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court is “to remove” a person from office on the grounds of ineligibility or disqualification. In the overall contentions, the same is wanting.
“Instead, it is apparent that the core issue boils down on the validity of the act of the president in issuing an appointment in favor of Magno that by all intent and purposes expressly removed Acosta as chairperson of MinDA,” it said.
The ruling was based on the case of De Lima versus Duterte, which states that “the President is immune from suit during his incumbency, regardless of the nature of the suit filed against him.”
“Undoubtedly, this petition (quo warranto) must be dismissed not only on the ground that it is an improper remedy as it is not anchored on the respondent’s qualification but more so on the premise that it is a challenge against an act of the President who is immune from suit, even without him invoking the privilege,” the resolution said.
