WE WRITE on behalf of our client, Rep. Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez of the fourth district of Leyte in connection with the article titled “SC won’t stop HRET from acting on protest vs Lucy” and written by Vincent Cabreza. (Inquirer, 4/17/12)
While we appreciate Cabreza’s article, we wish to clarify his erroneous report that the Supreme Court had ruled that the disqualification of Richard Gomez “rendered him a noncandidate, who therefore could not have been validly substituted, as there was no candidacy to speak of.”
May we clarify that the foregoing statement was a mere allegation of Eufrocino Codilla Jr. in his election protest and not the ruling of the Supreme Court. In the interest of correct and fair reporting, we wish to point out that the decision of the Supreme Court had, in effect, been rendered moot and academic by the decisions of the HRET in the election protest filed by Codilla and in the quo warranto case filed by Silverio Tagolino, both dated March 22, 2012, which upheld Representative Torres-Gomez as the duly elected representative of the fourth district of Leyte.
Both decisions of the HRET erased all doubts as to the validity of the substitution of Representative Torres-Gomez for her husband as a candidate for the position of representative of the fourth district of Leyte and finally settled the issue of residency of spouses Richard and Lucy when the HRET declared that Lucy Torres-Gomez is a resident of Ormoc City. We have attached copies of the decisions for reference.
We hope that Inquirer readers will be fully informed of the facts of the two cases.
—ALEX O. AVISADO JR. and
MARIA CRISTINA GARCIA-RAMIREZ,
counsels for Rep. Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez
I failed to include the word “he,” a reference to Codilla, in the Supreme Court decision’s narrative of the case, which I quoted in the story. My apologies.
—VINCENT CABREZA,
correspondent,
Inquirer Northern Luzon