Court puts POC issue on hold
Whether or not the Philippine Olympic Committee can push through with Friday’s elections without any legal complications was left hanging in the air following yesterday’s court hearing at Branch 159 of the Pasig Regional Trial Court.
Presiding Judge Elma Rafallo-Lingan listened to the oral arguments of the lawyers of both camps for over an hour then said she needed to go through their respective position papers before she could decide on the application of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).
The camp of boxing chief Ricky Vargas that came in full force to the hearing sought the TRO to prevent the POC elections from taking place on Friday while the court tries to resolve the issue on his disqualification as candidate for POC president.
The judge gave both parties until 2 p.m. today to submit their position papers and then said the order on the granting or non-granting of the TRO will come tomorrow morning. She said she needed more time to look at the case “Considering that there are more issues to be elaborated by both parties.”
Vargas, who is challenging three-term POC president Jose Cojuangco, was present during the hearing together with fellow sports officials Sonny Barrios and Al Panlilio of basketball, Nonong Araneta of football, Patrick Gregorio and Ed Picson of boxing, Ricky Palou of volleyball and Rep. Abraham Tolentino of cycling.
Tolentino is also seeking to run as POC chairman but along with Vargas was disqualified by the POC election committee led by Frank Elizalde for their alleged failure to meet the requirement on being an “active member” of the local Olympic body.
Elizalde and his fellow members of the POC election committee, Rep. Conrad Estrella and Bro. Bernie Oca, did not attend the proceedings nor any other ranking POC official.
The legal team of Vargas and Tolentino, led by Atty. George Aquino, argued that the POC election committee did not act in good faith in disqualifying the two officials and had acted in a matter that put Vargas and Tolentino in a “distinct disadvantage.”
The Vargas camp cited the vagueness in the POC ruling on being an active member. In the POC constitution and by-laws, they argued that there was no specific mention of having to attend “50 percent plus one” of the General Assembly meetings the past two years.
Aquino said Vargas and Tolentino have proven themselves to be active members, also by considering the fact that the sports associations that they head are two of the most successful ones in the country
But the lawyers of the POC, headed by Adison Castro, Romarico Gatchalian and Ramon Malinao, said the rule on being an active member “does not concern what you do in your NSA” but concerns presence in the General Assembly meetings.
Gatchalian raised the fact that in the last 14 meetings of the POC over the last two years, Vargas has not attended a single one.
“How do you determine what an active member is? If it was physical presence in 50 percent plus one of the meetings then why did they not state it clearly in the amendment (of the POC constitution). There is so much vagueness in this ruling,” said Vargas’ head lawyer.
Aquino further argued that the election committee “did not act in good faith” when it disqualified Vargas and Tolentino just two days after they filed their candidacy before the Oct. 24 deadline, followed by the formalization of their disqualification on Oct. 27. “There was a rapid succession of events,” he said. “The court required both parties to submit their position paper, their respective contentions and their respective arguments not until 2 p.m. today. After which the case will be submitted for resolution of the application for the TRO by Thursday,” said Atty. Chito Salud, spokesman for the Vargas camp.
“What we heard earlier were the oral arguments. The court wants it in written form,” he said.
The POC side also stressed before the judge that this case is “not exceptional” because the same rules on being an active member has been used in the past, including during the 2008 and 2012 elections.
“The rule has been used as early as 2008 but they (Vargas group) are making it appear that the interpretation was only made now and that this is an exception,” said Gatchalian.
“They claim that the (election) committee did it in bad faith. It was not intended to prejudice the plaintiffs,” said the POC lawyer, adding that the rules being applied in 2008 and 2012 does not necessarily mean that certain candidate or candidates were disqualified after they filed their candidacy.
Elizalde, in disqualifying Vargas and Tolentino, said there was a precedent of such case. The POC lawyers were also ordered by the judge to provide documents of such precedent.
Meanwhile, Congress has directed the House Committee on Youth and Sports Development to inquire, in aid of legislation, on the alleged mismanagement and abuse of authority of the current leaders of the POC.
Philippine Sports Commission chairman Butch Ramirez, meanwhile, called on Cojuangco, who is seeking a fourth term as POC president, and Vargas to a meeting and find ways to resolve the issue amicably.
A court ruling on the case may be construed as government intervention and may lead to an IOC suspension on the Philippines.