Republic of the Philippines COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Intramuros, Manila MARY ELIZABETH O. TY, Petitioner, SPA NO: _______________________ PROSPERO A. PICHAY, Jr., Respondent. x--------------------------------------x PETITION TO DENY DUE COURSE AND TO CANCEL CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY Petitioner, MARY ELIZABETH O. TY , through the undersigned counsel, to this Honorable Office respectfully avers the following: 1. Petitioner is of legal age, with residence address at Serra Street, Tandag City, Surigao del Sur. Petitioner filed her Certificate of 1 Candidacy (COC) for Member of the House of Representatives, 1st District of Surigao del Sur Province on 17 October 2018. 2. Respondent PROSPERO “BUTCH” PICHAY, is of legal age, with residence at Purok 3, San Pedro, Cantilan, Surigao del Sur. 2 Respondent filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Member of the House of Representatives, 1st District of Surigao del Sur Province on 17 October 2018. 3. The Omnibus Election Code provides in Section 78 that: Section 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. - A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due Attached hereto and made an integral part hereof is the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) of the petitioner as Annex “A”. 2 Attached hereto and made an integral part hereof is the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) of the respondent as Annex “B”. 1
Page 1 of 16
notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.” 4. As a responsible voter and concerned citizen of Surigao del Sur, petitioner files this instant petition against respondent PICHAY as it contains material representation in his COC that are false, for one: Item 11. I am eligible for the office I seek to be elected to” despite an immediately executory judgment of the Office of the Ombudsman that he is perpetually disqualified from holding public office. Item 22. Have you ever been found liable for an offense which carries with it the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office which has become final and executory?
Yes (Please provide details at the back) No
CASE DOCKET
CASE TITLE
DATE FILED STATU S
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5. With all due respect to the Honorable Commission, the Office of the Ombudsman, in its Decision dated 11 June 2011, has been found and declared respondent Pichay GUILTY OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT and imposed the penalty of DISMISSAL with accessory penalties of forfeiture of all benefits and DISQUALIFICATION TO HOLD ANY OFFICE. Thus, we 3 hereby quote the said Decision docketed as OMB-C-A-10-0426-1 , entitled “ RUSTICO B. TUTOL, ET AL., vs PROSPERO A. PICHAY JR., ET AL”, to wit: CONCLUSION
3
Attached herewith and made an integral part hereof is the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman on OMB-C-A-10-0426-1 dated 04 June 2011, entitled RUSTICO B. TUTOL, ET AL., VS PROSPERO A. PICHAY JR., ET AL , as Annex “C”. Page 2 of 16
UNDER THE PREMISES, there being substantial evidence, PROSPERO A. PICHAY, JR., DANIEL I. LANDINGIN, and WILFREDO M. FELEO are hereby found GUILTY OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT. The penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE is accordingly imposed against them pursuant to Section 52-A, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, with accessory penalties of forfeiture of all benefits, except leave credits, and disqualification to hold any public office. With respect to ATTY. ARNALDO M. ESPINAS, the administrative case against him is DISMISSED for lack of substantial evidence. The Order is immediately executory pursuant to Ombudsman Memorandum Circular No. 01, series of 2006, in relation to paragraph 1, Section 27 of R.A. 6770, and Section 7, Rule III, Administrative Order No. 7, Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended, and in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court in Ombudsman vs. Joel Samaniego. Accordingly, let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Honorable Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr. for the implementation hereof against PROSPERO A. PICHAY, JR., DANIEL I. LANDINGIN, and WILFREDO M. FELEO. 6. On 01 August 2011, the Office of the Ombudsman 4 promulgated a Joint Order DENYING the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Pichay and AFFIRMED its decision date 04 June 2011, thus we quote: WHEREFORE, under the foregoing premises, the Verified Motion for Reconsideration dated 08 July 2011 filed by Prospero A. Pichay, the Verified Motion for Reconsideration dated 08 July 2011 filed by Wilfredo M. Feleo and the the Verified Motion for Reconsideration dated 13 July 2011 filed by Daniel I. Landingin are DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 04 July 2011 finding them guilty of Grave Misconduct and imposing against them the penalty of Dismissal from Service stands.
4
Attached herewith and made an integral part hereof is the Certified True Copy of the Joint Order by the Office of the Ombudsman as Annex “D” Page 3 of 16
SO ORDERED. 7. On 08 July 2011, the Office of the President through Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Jr. issued MEMORANDUM FROM THE 5 EXECUTIVE SECRETARY to Chairman PROSPERO A. PICHAY, JR. with subject: “Decision dated 4 July 2011 of the office of the Ombudsman” stating: Pursuant to the Decision dated 4 July 2011 of the Office of the Ombudsman in the case docketed as OMB-C-A-10-0426-1 entitled “RUSTICO B. TUTOL, LUIS DG. ESTRADA, CARMEN F. AMORES, All of the Local Water Utilities Administration, MWSS/LWUA Complex, Katipunan Rd. BAlara Diliman, Quezon City, Complainants, versus PROSPERO A. PICHAY JR., (Salary Grade 30), Chairman, LWUA Board of Trustess, DANIEL I. LANDINGIN (Salary Grade 30), LWUA Acting Administrator, WILFREDO M. FELEO (Salary Grade 26), LWUA Acting Deputy Administrator for Investment & Financial Service, ATTY. ARNALDO M. ESPINAS (Salary Grade 26), LWUA, Corporate Legal Officer, All of the Local Water Utilities Administration, MWSS/LWUA Complex , Katipunan Rd. Balara, Diliman, Quezon City, Respondents”, you are here DISMISSED from the service with the accessory penalties of forfeiture of all benefits, except leave credits, and disqualification to hold any public office. 6
8. On 23 October 2013, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision DISMISSING the Petition for Review filed by respondent Pichay and AFFIRMING the ruling of the Honorable Office of the Ombudsman, thus it states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed decision dated July 4, 2011 and the joint order dated August 1, 2011 both of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-A-10-0426-1 are affirmed. SO ORDERED
Attached herewith and made an integral part hereof is copy of the Memorandum from the Executive Secretary dated 08 July 2011, as Annex “E”. 6 Attached herewith and made an integral part hereof is copy of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 23 October 2013, as Annex “F”. 5
Page 4 of 16
9. The Court of Appeal likewise DENIED the Motion for 7 reconsideration filed by respondent Pichay in its Resolution dated 24 February 2014, and we quote: WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. SO ORDERED. 10. Perforce, the Office of the Ombudsman issued directive to the COMELEC dated 24 November 2015, 1st Indorsement to the COMELEC dated 19 December 2015 and 1st Indorsement to the House of 8 Representatives dated 14 July 2016 in order to enforce its Decision and implement the penalty of Dismissal from the service and together with the accessory penalty, for appropriate action. 11. On 19 January 2016, the COMELEC issued Document No. 9 16-0741 (LAW 16-00328) in response to the 1st Indorsement of the Office of the Ombudsman [VIDE: Annex “G-1”] stating that respondent Pichay was already included in their database on the list of those disqualified to hold public office. 12. An appeal before the Supreme Court is pending now. In any case, regardless of the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman Decision is executory – as it has been since it was promulgated on 4 July 2011. 13. Hence, this instant Petition to Deny Due Course and Cancel Certificate of Candidacy of respondent Pichay as Member, House of Representative in the 1st District, Province of Surigao del Sur pursuant to Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, to wit: Section 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. - A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any 7
Attached herewith and made an integral part hereof is copy of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 24 February 2014, as Annex “F-1”.
Attached herewith and made an integral part hereof is copy of the Ombudsman’s directive to COMELEC dated 24 November 2015, 1st Indorsements to the COMELEC and HREP as Annexes “G” , “G-1”, and “G-2”, respectively. 9 Attached herewith and made an integral part hereof is copy of the COMELEC Document No. 16-0741 (LAW 16-00328) as Annex “H”. 8
Page 5 of 16
material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election. 14. A representation in the COC that the candidate is eligible to run for public office when in truth and in fact is NOT constitutes false material representation considering that Section 74 of the OEC categorically mandates that the contents of COC must be true, stating: Section 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. - The certificate of candidacy shall state that the person filing it is announcing his candidacy for the office stated therein and that he is eligible for said office; if for Member of the Batasang Pambansa, the province, including its component cities, highly urbanized city or district or sector which he seeks to represent; the political party to which he belongs; civil status; his date of birth; residence; his post office address for all election purposes; his profession or occupation; that he will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that he will obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign country; that the obligation imposed by his oath is assumed voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that the facts stated in the certificate of candidacy are true to the best of his knowledge.
15. In the instant case, an administrative charge was filed against respondent Pichay before the Office of the Ombudsman docketed as OMB-C-A-10-0426-1 for violation of RA 6713 and grave misconduct. Consequently, respondent Pichay was declared GUILTY OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT where the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE has been imposed against him pursuant to Section 52-A, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, with accessory penalties of forfeiture of all benefits, except leave credits, and disqualification to hold any public office [ VIDE: Annex “C”]. 16. Respondent Pichay was likewise DISMISSED from service Chairman of LWUA Board of Trustees, with the accessory penalties of forfeiture of all benefits and disqualification to hold Page 6 of 16
any appointive office, through the Memorandum issued by the Office of the President dated08 July 2011 [VIDE: Annex “E”]. 17. Further, after the protracted legal battle, the Court of Appels DENIED the appeal and the motion for reconsideration of respondent Pichay [VIDE: Annexes “F” and “F-1”] that caused the Office of the Ombudsman to issue directives through letter and Indorsements to the COMELEC and HREP [VIDE: Annex “G”, “G-1”, “G-2”]. 18. Despite all these, respondent Pichay in his 17 October 2018 COC declared under oath that he is eligible to run for public office as 1st District Respresentative of Surigao del Sur when in fact, the Office of the Ombudsman meted an accessory penalty of DISQUALIFICATION TO HOLD ANY OFFICE to his principal penalty of DISMISSAL from Service. A declaration that is completely false and intended to mislead the Honorable Office of his disqualification to hold any office. 19. Worst, in item 22- respondent Pichay deliberately stated a false representation in item 22 when he intentionally declared that he was never been found liable for an offense which carries with it the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office, when in fact, the accessory penalty of DISQUALIFICATION TO HOLD ANY OFFICE to his principal penalty of DISMISSAL from Service is immediately EXECUTORY. 20. To strengthen his misrepresentation, respondent Pichay wittingly declared, at the back of his COC, that he has no pending case whatsoever when he answered N/A under the table: CASE DOCKET
CASE TITLE
DATE FILED STATU S
N/A N/A N/A N/A 21. Section 7, Rule III of the Administrative Order No. 07 RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17 dated September 15, 2003, explicitly provides: Section 7. Finality and execution of decision. - Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be final, executory and unappealable. In all other cases, the Page 7 of 16
decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration. An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal. A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or failure by any officer without just cause to comply with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer. (Emphasis ours) 22. Further, it is already by principle that the immediately executory nature of the Office of the Ombudsman Decisions is a matter of course. Hence, no appeal nor injunctive relief can stay its execution. Otherwise, it will be tantamount to encroachment on the rule-making the powers of the Ombudsman that will create Constitutional crises due to blatant bastardization of the existing laws of the land. Time and time again, the Highest Court upheld the powers of the Ombudsman in the 10 case of Gamallo vs Escandor in 2017, to wit: he issue presented in these consolidated petitions is T not novel. In fact, it has long been settled in a number of cases, to wit: Office of the Ombudsman v. Samaniego, Villasenor, et al. v. Ombudsman, et al., and The Office of the Ombudsman v. Valencerina, stating that the OMB's decision, even if the penalty imposed is dismissal from the service, is immediately executory despite the pendency of a motion for reconsideration or an appeal and cannot be stayed by mere filing of them. xxx xxx xxx It can be gleaned from the afore-quoted provision that the OMB's decisions in administrative cases may either be unappealable or appealable.1âwphi1 The unappealable decisions are final and executory, to wit: (1) respondent is CINDY SHIELA COBARDE-GAMALLO vs. JOSE ROMEO C. ESCANDOR, G.R. No. 184464, June 21, 2017.
10
Page 8 of 16
absolved of the charge; (2) the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand; (3) suspension of not more than one month; and (4) a fine equivalent to one month's salary. The appealable decisions, on the other hand, are those falling outside the aforesaid enumeration, and may be appealed to the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within 15 days from receipt of the written notice of the decision or order denying the motion for reconsideration. Section 7 is categorical in providing that an appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory, and that such shall be executed as a matter of course. xxx xxx xxx Here, Escandor was ordered dismissed from the service. Undoubtedly, such decision against him is appealable via Rule 43 to the CA. Nonetheless, the same is immediately executory even pending appeal or in his case even pending his motion for reconsideration before the OMB as that is the clear mandate of Section 7, Rule III of the OMB Rules of Procedure, as amended, as well as the OMB's MC No. 01, Series of 2006. As such, Escandor's filing of a motion for reconsideration does not stay the immediate implementation of the OMB 's order of dismissal since "a decision of the [OMB] in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course" under the afore-quoted Section 7. 23. More so, Section 12 of the OEC DOES NOT require that the declaration by competent authority of incompetence is final and executory. It is sufficient that there is such a declaration by a competent authority. The Office of the Ombudsman has made a declaration and it is a competent authority. When stratified for clarity, Section 12 of the OEC provides: Sec. 12. Disqualifications. — Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he was sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary pardon or granted amnesty. The disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period of five Page 9 of 16
years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he again becomes disqualified. 24. Prescinding thereto, there are disqualifications under Section 12, to wit:
two sets of
First, any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent; and Second, any person who has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime involving moral turpitude. 25. Based on the foregoing, the modifier / qualifier “final” is clearly used only in relation to judgments for five offenses which could be a basis for disqualification to hold public office, as follows: First, subversion; Second, insurrection; Third, rebellion; Fourth, any offense for which a penalty of more than eighteen months imprisonment has been imposed; and Fifth, any offense involving moral turpitude 26. Cogently, for declarations of (a) insanity and (b) incompetence, the finality of such declaration is unnecessary based on the express language of Section of the OEC. The Ombudsman Decision is a declaration by competent authority of incompetence of a certain person, Respondent Pichay, to hold public office. 27. With this, Respondent Pichay clearly made a false material representation in his CoC with respect to an item that is required under Section 74 of the OEC, as follows: Sec. 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. - The certificate of candidacy shall state that the person filing it is announcing his candidacy for the office stated therein and that he is eligible for said office.” (Emphasis supplied.) 28. Given all the foregoing premises, it is now uncontroverted that respondent Pichay is utterly ineligible to hold public office, given the immediately executory disqualification to hold public office expressed in the Ombudsman Decision. Respondent Pichay is well Page 10 of 16
aware of this ineligibility as he has even invoked judicial remedies available against the Ombudsman Decision. Despite this ineligibility and his awareness thereof, he boldly sworn oath, in his COC, that he is eligible for the office that he is seeking to be elected to. 29. Finally, because of his false material representation in his COC, once this Petition under Section 78 of the OEC is granted, 11 Respondent Pichay’s COC shall be deemed to have been void ab inito. Therefore, a person whose COC had been denied due course to and/or cancelled under Section 78 is deemed to have not been a candidate at 12 all. The Supreme Court has explained this in unmistakable terms in Tagolino vs. HRET: Considering that Section 77 requires that there be a candidate in order for substitution to take place, as well as the precept that a person without a valid CoC is not considered as a candidate at all, it necessarily follows that if a person’s COC had been denied due course to and/or cancelled, he or she cannot be validly substituted in the electoral process. The existence of a valid COC is therefore a condition sine qua 13 non for a disqualified candidate to be validly substituted. P R A Y E R WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed for to this Honorable Commission that the Certificate of Candidacy of PROSPERO A. PICHAY for Member of the House of Representatives, 1st District of Surigao del Sur Province filed on 17 October 2018 be DENIED DUE COURSE and CANCELLED on the ground that material representations contained therein are FALSE and be deemed as having been void ab inito and that no substitution shall be allowed for Respondent Pichay’s void candidacy. Petitioner further prays for other reliefs, just and equitable, as she may be entitled to. Makati City, 11 November 2018.
Counsel for the Petitioner TY-DELGADO VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, G.R. No. 21903, 26 January 2016. 12 TAGOLINO VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, G.R. NO. 202202, 19 March 2013. 13 Id. 11
Page 11 of 16
ADDRESS PTR NO. IBP Life No Roll No. MCLE Compliance No. Contact No: VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING I, Mary Elizabeth O. Ty, of legal age, Filipino, with address at Barangay Bongtud, Tandag, Surigao del Sur, after being duly sworn to according to law, depose and state that: 1. I have prepared this petition, filed before the Commission on Elections (“COMELEC”), to deny due course to, or cancel, the certificate of candidacy of Prospero A. Pichay, Jr. for congressman of the first legislative district of Surigao del Sur in the May 2019 elections (“Petition”). 2. I have read and understood the contents of the Petition and all the allegations contained therein are true and correct based on my own personal knowledge, documents in my possession, and public documents or public records. 3. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issue covered by this Petition before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court, or any other court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial government agency. 4. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court, or any other court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial government agency. 5. If I hereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court, or any other court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial government agency, I undertake to report the fact to the COMELEC within five (5) days from knowledge thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature hereto this 12th November 2018 in _____________________________ City.
day of
MARY ELIZABETH O. TY Affiant Page 12 of 16
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 12th day of November 2018, in ____________ City, affiant exhibiting to me her Driver’s License No. LO9-00-004619 with expiration date on 27 April 2022, as proof of her identity. Doc. No. _____; Page No. ______; Book No. _____; Series of 2018.
_______________________ Notary Public
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, Rustum M. Tutol, of legal age, Filipino, with address at 833A Reyes Compound, Gomez Street, Barangay Manggahan, Pasig City, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, do hereby state that: 1. I have been authorized by Mary Elizabeth O. Ty, petitioner in the petition before the Commission on Elections (“COMELEC”) to deny due course to, or cancel, the certificate of candidacy of Prospero A. Pichay, Jr. for congressman of the first legislative district of Surigao del Sur in the May 2019 elections (“Petition”), to render a personal service of the Petition on the respondent Prospero A. Pichay, Jr. (“Pichay”) in accordance with the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended. Attached as “A” is the special power of attorney executed by Mary Elizabeth O. Ty. 2. Pichay is a sitting member of the Seventeenth Congress of the House of Representatives. 3. Based on House Concurrent Resolution No. 19, the third regular session of the Seventeenth Congress of the House of Representatives resumes on 12 November 2018 after having been adjourned on 13 October 2018. Attached as “B” is the Concurrent Resolution Providing for the Legislative Calendar for the Third Regular Session of the Seventeenth Congress of the Philippines. 4. Based on the presumption that officials of the government regularly perform their official duties and functions, I assumed that Pichay will be present at his current office located at Room SWA-401 of the House of Representatives, Quezon City on 12 November 2018. ( http://www.congress.gov.ph/members/search.php?id=pichay-jr) 5. On 12 November 2018, I attempted to personally serve on Pichay a copy of the Petition at his office address at the House of Representatives, Quezon City. When I did this, I was told by a staff at Pichay’s office that Pichay was not there at that time. Thus, Respondent Page 13 of 16
In his absence, I sought to leave a copy of the Petition at Pichay’s office but I was told by the staff that I should instead course the service through the central receiving office of the House of Representatives. 4. With this, I proceeded to the central receiving office of the House of Representatives to have the copy of the Petition received thereby. A copy of the first page of the Petition, stamped received by the House of Representatives on 12 November 2018, is attached hereto as Annex 2. 5. At the same time, to ensure the timely receipt by Pichay of a copy of the Petition, I sent a copy of the Petition to Pichay at the address he indicated in his certificate of candidacy – Purok 3, San Pedro, Cantilan, Surigao del Sur - by courier, LBC Express. A copy of the LBC airway bill is attached hereto as Annex 3. 6. I also sent a copy of the same Petition to Pichay at the said address – Purok 3, San Pedro, Cantilan, Surigao del Sur – by registered mail. A copy of the return is attached hereto as Annex 4. 7. A personal service on Pichay at his Surigao del Sur address is not feasible because first, he should be at his office at the House of Representatives on 12 November 2018, and second, Petitioner and myself are both in Metro Manila on 12 November 2018. Thus, personal service on Pichay through his address in Surigao del Sur will be physically impossible. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature hereto this 12th November 2018 in _____________________________ City.
day of
_________________________ Rustum B. Tutol Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 12th day of November 2018, in ____________________________________________ City, affiant exhibiting to me his _________________________________________________________, as proof of his identity.
Doc. No. _____; Page No. ______; Book No. _____; Series of 2018.
_______________________ Notary Public
Page 14 of 16
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES }
___________________________________ } S.S.
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY I, MARY ELIZABETH O. TY, Filipino, of legal age, and a resident of Barangay Bongtud, Tandag, Surigao del Sur, subscribing under oath, do hereby name, constitute and appoint RUSTUM M. TUTOL, likewise Filipino, of legal age, and a resident of 833A Reyes Compound, Gomez St., Barangay Manggahan, Pasig City, as my true and lawful attorney, for and in my name, place and stead, to render a personal service of the Petition on Prospero A. Pichay, Jr. in the petition that I am filing before the Commission on Elections to deny due course to, or cancel, the certificate of candidacy of Prospero A. Pichay, Jr. for congressman of the first legislative district of Surigao del Sur in the May 2019 elections, in accordance with the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended. I hereby give and grant unto the said attorney-in-fact full power and authority to do and perform whatsoever requisite necessary to be done in and about the foregoing premises; I also ratify and confirm, as I hereby ratify and confirm, whatsoever the said attorney-in-fact shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this appointment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature hereto this 12th November 2018 in _____________________________ City.
day of
MARY ELIZABETH O. TY Page 15 of 16
Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 12th day of November 2018, in ____________ City, affiant exhibiting to me her Driver’s License No. LO9-00-004619 with expiration date on 27 April 2022, as proof of her identity.
Doc. No. _____; Page No. ______; Book No. _____; Series of 2018.
_______________________ Notary Public
Page 16 of 16