SC rejects outright Gadon's petition vs law renaming NAIA
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court junked outright the petition filed by Larry Gadon, who was previously admonished in June ruling, seeking to revert name of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport to Manila International Airport.
The controversy over Gadon's views on COVID-19 and face masks outlasted the issue he raised in his petition against the law that renamed NAIA from Manila International Airport, which the SC junked outright and unanimously.
SC spokesperson Brian Hosaka said the justices, in a full court session on Tuesday, “unanimously denied for lack of merit” Gadon’s petition seeking the nullification of the Republic Act 6639 that renamed NAIA.
A copy of the resolution has yet to be made public.
The lawyer, in his petition, asked the SC to scrap a 33-year-old law on the renaming of NAIA for supposedly violating the National Historical Commission of the Philippines guidelines, issued 20 years after the assailed law was passed.
He argued that the prohibition on ex post facto law only applies to criminal cases, and since RA 6639 has no afflictive penalties involved, “then it is not exempted from future guidelines.”
His petition did not name any respondents but named the Office of the Solicitor General as party to the case.
During the filing of his petition, Gadon also earned a warning of arrest from the Philippine National Police for refusing to wear face mask and face shield, as shown in his media interviews.
This is at least the second petition of Gadon that the SC junked outright.
In June, the tribunal unanimously voted to throw out Gadon’s Petition for Prohibition filed on March 5 asking the tribunal to issue a halt order against NTC Commissioner Gamaliel Cordoba from complying with the House of Representatives’ letter to the commission.
In the same ruling, the court told Gadon to be more circumspect” in bringing pleas to the tribunal as it stressed that filing cases before it “is a serious affair.”
“Not only will the over eagerness to file border on the contumacious, it also puts in unnecessary peril the legal arguments of the person or the entity that has an actual case,” it added.
- Latest
- Trending
