A suit questioning Manila Mayor-elect Joseph “Erap” Estrada’s qualification to run may be taken up by the Supreme Court (SC) after the former president’s resounding victory.

A source said the case can no longer be dismissed outright because he won the elections.
A defeat for Estrada would have prompted the court to dismiss the case for being moot.

“The is an actual case or controversy so the case must be decided on the merits,” the source said.
The disqualification case against the former president was filed by lawyer Alicia Risos-Vidal who questioned before the high court the Comelec decision which turned down her disqualification case against Estrada.
In an April 23 resolution, the Comelec said Vidal’s argument in her motion for reconsideration that the Second Division erred in resolving the material issue in her petition was “bereft of any merit.”
“After careful perusal of the records of this case, we find no cogent reason to depart from the Resolution of the Commission Second Division,” the resolution stated.
The electoral body noted that Vidal’s “arguments are mere rehash of the issues and arguments raised in the petition which issues and arguments were already thoroughly reviewed, passed upon and incisively examined by the Second Division.”
Vidal, who was outgoing Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim’s lawyer in the 2010 elections, argued that Estrada’s conviction for plunder had rendered him disqualified to seek another public office.
She claimed that the pardon granted to him by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo did not restore his right to seek or hold public office.
Estrada got 343,993 votes against Lim’s 308,544 votes.

Thirteen new magistrates have been named by Malacañang to posts in Ilocos Region, Cagayan Valley, Central Luzon, Southern Tagalog and Bicol.

The transmittal letters of Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. were sent to Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Aranal-Sereno.
The new appointees are MTC Judge Rhea Sernadilla-Gallevo of Agoo, La Union; MTC Judge Romeo Carmelito Conge of Pulilan, Bulacan; MTC Judge Jose Covarrubias III of Branch 1 Meycauayan, Bulacan; MTC Judge Rene de la Cruz of Daet, Camarines Norte; MTC Judge Maria Christine Bernarte of Calabanga, Camarines Sur; MTC Judge Salvador Villarosa Jr. of Labo, Camarines Norte; MTC Judge Maria Kristina Malanyaon of Buhi, Camarines Sur; RTC Judge Pedro Redonia of Branch 63 Calabanga, Camarines Sur; RTC Judge Ignacio Barcillano Jr. of Branch 13, Ligao, Albay; MTC Judge George Andy Pantanosas of Branch 2, Binganonan, Rizal; MTC Judge Bonhoefer Bernardez of Bantay, Ilocos Sur; MTC Judge Rachelle Asuncion Palen of Bolinao, Pangasinan; RTC Judge Cresencio Maliwat of Branch 21 Santiago, Isabela.
The Judicial and Bar Council, which conducted the selection for the new judges, is headed by its chairman Sereno with three ex-officio members, namely, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, Sen. Francis Escudero and Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas.
There are also four regular members which include lawyer Jose Mejia from the academe, lawyer Milagros Fernan-Cayosa from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, former SC Justice Regino Hermosisima and representing the private sector retired CA Justice Aurora Santiago-Lagman.

Government lawyers have formally asked the Supreme Court (SC) to take back its new rule requiring submission of judicial affidavits.

In a letter to Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Prosecutor General Claro Arellano said they believe the judicial affidavit rule (JAR) would not solve case congestion and delays as foreseen by the high court.
“The implementation of the JAR is not the solution to these problems. On the contrary, the JAR will only add to these concerns. Not only will it unjustly burden the prosecutors, defense lawyers and private practitioners but criminal cases will be resolved not on the basis of the evidence brought forth by the parties but rather due to mere technicalities,” Arellano said.
Arellano pointed out that prosecutors have limited time to prepare judicial affidavit since they are already burdened with heavy workload and cited Department of Justice’s insufficiency of fiscals, support staff and supplies, adding that complying with the JAR would take more time than conducting direct examinations.
“JAR will result in numerous dismissals of cases due to technicalities. Judges also cannot observe the demeanor/credibility of witnesses,” the DoJ official added.
The SC’s JAR requirements was set to be implemented last January 2 but was suspended following an objection from the Prosecutors’ League of the Philippines.
The suspension order came after the magistrates decided to first tackle a proposal of Associate Justice Roberto Abad “for the deferment of the application of the Judicial Affidavit Rule for one year from 1 January 2013 to 1 January 2014 under certain conditions.”
The new rule, which was approved by the high court unanimously in September last year, provides that “when a party (whether plaintiff or defendant) questions his own witness, he no longer needs to place the witness on the witness stand.” As a substitute, the party or his lawyer merely submits the written sworn statement of his witness in a question-and-answer format. It also requires each party to the case to attach all his documentary evidence to the judicial affidavit which, in turn, must be submitted at least five days before the “pre-trial” or “preliminary conference” in the case.
The JAR was said to be effective in reducing the time used for presenting the testimonies of witnesses by about two-thirds after a pilot program was in the Quezon City courts.