By IVY TEJANO

DAVAO CITY – A Regional Trial Court here has rejected the motion for reconsideration filed by former Mindanao Development Authority chairwoman Maria Belen “Mabel” Acosta contesting the dismissal of her quo warranto petition against MinDA Chairman Leo Tereso Magno.

In an 18-page decision, Judge Nanette Gustilo Lemana of the Davao City RTC Branch 11 said that Acosta did not demonstrate a clear entitlement to the disputed office.

As a result, Lemana dismissed her case due to a lack of cause of action.

Lemana refuted Acosta’s claim of security of tenure, asserting that her six-year appointment as MinDA chair did not guarantee permanence in the role. She explained that the MinDA chair’s role is like a Cabinet position, a non-career job that serves at the President’s discretion.

According to Lemana, it is an elementary principle that Cabinet members can be dismissed at the President’s discretion. The United States applies the same principle, she added.

Lemana emphasized that Acosta had been serving in a holdover capacity after she was appointed by former President Rodrigo R. Duterte, whose term expired with the assumption of President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. in 2022.

She ruled that Acosta failed to establish a valid cause of action for the quo warranto petition against Magno. She stated that Acosta’s petition did not demonstrate that Magno lacked the qualifications and eligibility to serve as MinDA chairperson.

“Instead, the petition focused on the narrative that petitioner Acosta was not removed for cause nor with due process and that there is no vacancy in the Office of the MinDA Chairperson. These issues do not relate to Magno’s qualifications and eligibility,” Lemana said.

Lemana dismissed Acosta’s contention that her removal without prior notice led to a situation with two officials claiming the same position.

She said that jurisprudence indicates that prior notice and due hearing or sufficient grounds are not required before an appointee serving at the pleasure of the appointing authority can be validly separated from the office.

Acosta filed the quo warranto petition before the court two months ago. She maintained  the position of MinDA chair is not vacant and her replacement is not warranted because her term of office is fixed for six years since she was appointed by Duterte on January 13, 2022.

The Supreme Court describes quo warranto as the “appropriate legal action to assess a person’s claim to a public office and remove the current holder if necessary.” A state may also use a quo warranto action to revoke a corporation’s charter.