Post by Ltin on Nov 29, 2021 20:25:40 GMT -5
The court thanks all the parties in this case for their participation. The plaintiff is right that Procedure Rules do not require a violation to be ongoing, but that is not sufficient to have standing. The Judiciary Act states the following:
The remedy requested by the plaintiff is currently in the process of being provided. No "remedy" that the court can provide would change that. Though there remains the possibility that the election is not completed in line with the law, as things stand, the result of this case would not impact the plaintiff, and as such the plaintiff does not have standing. The case is dismissed without prejudice.
4. To be a valid party to initiate legal proceedings, plaintiffs must show
a) for civil cases, that the result of the case would directly impact them;
b) for criminal cases, that they were appointed by the Chief Executive to prosecute the case;
c) for advisory opinions, that they are a citizen of Spiritus;
d) for recourse under the Citizenship Act, that their application for citizenship was denied by the Chief Executive.
a) for civil cases, that the result of the case would directly impact them;
b) for criminal cases, that they were appointed by the Chief Executive to prosecute the case;
c) for advisory opinions, that they are a citizen of Spiritus;
d) for recourse under the Citizenship Act, that their application for citizenship was denied by the Chief Executive.
The remedy requested by the plaintiff is currently in the process of being provided. No "remedy" that the court can provide would change that. Though there remains the possibility that the election is not completed in line with the law, as things stand, the result of this case would not impact the plaintiff, and as such the plaintiff does not have standing. The case is dismissed without prejudice.