Written by 
MANILA, Philippines — Former Albay Gov. Noel Rosal has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to nullify the resolution of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) disqualifying him from seeking reelection in the 2025 polls, which he claimed was issued “mas mabilis pa sa kidlat” (faster than lightning) to favor his political rivals.”
Based on the 25-page petition filed Friday by Rosal’s lawyers led by Atty. Romulo Macalintal, the poll body committed “grave abuse of discretion when it rendered the resolutions disqualifying him under Section 40 of the Local Government Code (LGC) pursuant to Comelec Resolution No. 11044-A.”
The petition urged the SC to issue a restraining order against Comelec’s ruling disqualifying Rosal and eventually declare the poll body’s order void.
Comelec Resolution No. 11044-A bars dismissed public officials with perpetual disqualification from holding public office from filing a certificate of candidacy despite the pendency of an appeal.
Last September, the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed Rosal from service after finding him administratively liable for grave misconduct, oppression, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The case is still on appeal.
Rosal then went to the SC to question the legality of Comelec Resolution No. 11044-A.
Article continues after this advertisement
READ: Ex-Albay gov asks SC to nullify Comelec disqualification rule
Article continues after this advertisement
Rosal’s case was consolidated with two other similar petitions.
Then, the SC issued a restraining order that stopped the implementation of the Comelec Resolution.
READ: SC issues TRO vs Comelec resolution on dismissed public officials
However, a certain Josefino Dioquino, who claimed to be a registered voter of Legazpi City, sought the “automatic administrative cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy” of the former Albay official, citing the said Comelec resolution.
“[T]he petition should be dismissed on the ground that the implementation of Comelec Resolution No. 11044-A was, as stated, enjoined or stopped by the Supreme Court in the said TRO dated October 22, 2024,” Rosal argued.
Instead of dismissing the petition, Rosal said the poll body issued a resolution disqualifying him.
“[T]he Comelec flagrantly violated the importance of the TRO because Section 40 of the LGC is one of the grounds for disqualification under Comelec Resolution No. 11044-A, which the SC enjoined or prohibited from being implemented by the Comelec,” the former Albay official argued.
“By converting Dioquino’s petition to one for disqualification under Section 40 of the LGC, my right to due process was violated because such conversion was done without giving me a chance to answer the same and that it broadened the scope of Dioquino’s petition beyond what was asked by him as his causes of action were substantially and materially altered,” Rosal said.
He claimed that the poll body’s en banc also denied his motion for reconsideration filed on January 2 “without even asking Dioquino to answer or oppose it. Which means that my motion for reconsideration was unopposed.”
The motion for reconsideration was elevated to the Comelec En Banc on January 6, 2025, and the ruling denying it was issued the following day, January 7.
Macalintal said the Comelec en banc “cannot resolve it in one day time because, as certified by its Chairman at the bottom of the resolution, the conclusions in the resolution were reached in consultation with the members of the commission before the case was assigned to the ponente” — or the writer of the court’s majority decision.
“So when did they have the consultation; when did they refer the case to the ponente; when did the ponente write the one-day decision; and when was the decision routed to the Commissioners and Chairman for their signatures?” Macalintal asked.
Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.