MANILA - The Supreme Court has denied the quo warranto petition that a perennial nuisance candidate filed against President Rodrigo Duterte citing his lack of legal standing and the lapse of the prescribed period to take such legal action.

In its en banc ruling, the high court said Elly Pamatong, a suspended lawyer who once proclaimed himself as the rightful Philippine president, filed his plea in June 2018, nearly 2 years since Duterte's inauguration as president.

The prescription period for such a petition is only one year.

"Petitioners right to hold the disputed office, if at all, arose on June 30, 2016, when respondent was inaugurated as the 16th President of the Republic of the Philippines. Following this, petitioner's cause of action prescribed on June 30, 2017," the court said in a 7-page resolution.

The Court also agreed with the Duterte camp's comment that Pamatong "lacks the legal standing to bring an action for quo warranto," noting that any person who brings an action "must be able to substantiate a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy he brings for determination."

A quo warranto plea seeks to invalidate an official's assumption of his or her post. In May last year, the high court removed its then chief, Maria Lourdes Sereno, through such a petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida.

In its ruling on the Pamatong plea, the court said that for the petitioner to have a standing required for it, "he must be himself claiming entitlement to the presidency which he alleged is being usurped by respondent."

"Other than his bare declaration that he "took an oath as caretaker President of the Republic of the Philippines, and assumed the Presidency on June 30, 2016," the petitioner failed to corroborate such claims, which nonetheless, are demonstrably belied by the results of the 2016 elections," the resolution said.

The suspended lawyer’s certificate of candidacy for the presidential post in the 2016 elections had been disapproved by the Commission on Elections as he was found to be a nuisance candidate, the court found.

"There is, therefore, no factual basis for petitioner's assertion of a personal claim to the position of President," it said.

In his quo warranto petition filed in June last year, Pamatong called Duterte a “usurper” because the certificate of candidacy (COC) he filed in 2015 was “not allowed by law.”

“Prior to the elections on May 9, 2016, Rodrigo Roa Duterte withdrew his COC for mayor in Davao City and, thereafter, filed another COC for another position or for the position of the Presidency. According to the Comelec this process is not allowed by law,” the petition stated.

“Under the law, a candidate who withdraws his COC for one position cannot thereafter file a COC for another position,” it added.