A New York court on Monday ordered the installation of winners in the Oct. 1 election for president and six members of the board of the Philippine Independence Day Council, Inc.

“I don’t think you can freeze an organization,” Justice Jane S. Solomon of the New York State Supreme Court said in a brief handwritten decision, “so I am, on my own motion, lifting it.”

She was referring to her order on Sept. 30 to withhold declaring the winners because of a challenge to the admission of new members through allegedly irregular means.

Ludivina de Asis Hughes, who sought an injunction to stop the election, said she would appeal the decision.

In her written order, the judge directed that the “results of the election be publicly tabulated and broadcast and the victors installed.”

She also directed that the secured membership applications be reviewed “with a view toward transparency in the future.”

The new board was told to review challenged memberships and to make a plan for “future public challenges to be made well in advance of the next election to avoid dispute like this one.”

During the preliminary conference, the judge asked the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, Emad Iskaros, how many membership applications would sustain a challenge.

The lawyer replied, “10,” but after conferring with his clients, he said approximately 30 should not have been accepted.

Turning to the defendants’ lawyer, Tristan Loanzon, the judge asked about the discrepancy between the winners and losers.

“There are 25 voters separating the winner and the losing candidate,” he answered.

The PIDCI election committee previously reported that Isagani Puertollano, the presidential candidate, polled 116 votes, or 24 votes over Hughes’ 92.

Then there was a discussion about the number of voters, renewals or new members.

Loanzon said there were 176 renewals and 95 new members, or a total of 271.

“How do we get 210?” the judge asked, referring to the total votes cast and counted.

Feliciano Macaraeg, one of the plaintiffs, was allowed by the judge to give a brief summary of the injunction case.

“We found out there were defunct organizations that were tainted just to qualify them to vote in this election,” Macaraeg, who ran for director under the Hughes ticket, told the court.

He said that they (the defendants) wanted to pay for the registration fees of these organizations, instead of paying business checks of the organizations or personal checks of officers.

He said money orders, numbering 59, were used and bought in series from five different post offices to be used by different people.

Turning to the five reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in their complaint Justice Solomon addressed each issue one by one.

First, she rejected the first one seeking temporary restraining order to stop the election.

Second, she said courts do not enforce or review the bylaws of organizations pertaining to conditions of membership and admission thereof.

Third, appointing a special master to oversee, review and enforce membership applications is “premature.”

Fourth, since the lawsuit has no “live claim,” the plaintiffs cannot be awarded compensatory and punitive damages.

Fifth, American litigation does not give attorneys’ fees unless “there’s a contractual provision for it.”