Suing your rival: the old ‘dirty trick'

THERE is no ban on any lawsuit filed against a public official who plans to run in the next election. Election laws don't protect a candidate from being sued even if the litigation largely aims to damage his campaign.

If it's any comfort, that's true with many other court actions. Any person can be harassed with a complaint before prosecutor or court. Mere filing sets off the machinery of justice that ironically can be used to inflict injustice. And striking back with a complaint of malicious prosecution is as tough to pursue as it's easy to pin a cause of action against anyone.

Litigation isn't similar to outright black propaganda but wields heavier impact on public opinion. A complaint has a serious and legitimate tone: there's the judicial setting, not just a politician's open accusation or illicit leak to media.

Despite the good faith the public wants to grant the complainant, raising an allegation that can't be resolved before the balloting just misleads voters. Whom to believe in the trading of charges and denials?

An example is the accusation, purportedly sworn to by City Councilor Gerry Carillo's employees, that he charged to City Hall their salaries for working in his private resto bar. Carillo denied that public money was used: they worked for his business after office hours and their services were paid by his company.

The public would've neither time nor means to determine who's lying or how much political interest has tainted the claim of each side.

Timing

Timing obviously is crucial to the "dirty trick" which exploits the judicial process, thanks to politicians who if they were really honestly motivated could have sued Carillo before Team Rama announced his bid for the south House seat.

Court dockets are unduly burdened but judges have no choice, even though most of these politicsdriven charges are dropped after the elections.