COURT; DE LIMA REJECTS SC TRO
MANILA, NOVEMBER 18,
2011 (STANDARD) by Rey E. Requejo, Rey T. Salita and
Maricel Cruz - Justice Secretary refuses to carry out the Supreme Court's
temporary restraining order allowing former President Gloria Arroyo to leave the
country for medical treatment
THE Aquino administration headed for a showdown with the Supreme Court
Wednesday after Justice Secretary Leila de Lima refused to carry out its order
to allow former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to leave the country.
Lawmakers warned of a constitutional crisis, with one senator describing the
Palace move as "a declaration of war" on the Supreme Court.
At a press conference after the Justice Department received the Court's
temporary restraining order, De Lima vowed to enforce a travel ban on Mrs.
Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo until the Supreme Court had ruled on
the government's motion that the order be revoked.
Mrs. Arroyo, who faces plunder and electoral fraud charges, wants to seek
treatment abroad for her bone ailment but the government says she is a flight
risk and wants to keep her in the country to face the charges that it has yet to
file in court.
Mrs. Arroyo had challenged the travel ban before the Supreme Court, which on
Tuesday said she could leave while it decided on her petition.
De Lima blocked the Arroyo couple's exit Tuesday night, saying her department
had not yet received a copy of the Court's temporary restraining order, but
refused to carry it out Wednesday even after her department had received a copy
of it.
"Our position is that since there is a motion for reconsideration, the high
court's TRO should not yet be implemented," De Lima said.
Supreme Court spokesman and administrator Midas Marquez disputed the view,
even as the Arroyos said they would try to fly out again today (see separate
story).
"One a TRO is issued, it has its full force and effect until lifted. Only the
Court can suspend or lift its TRO. Its force and effect cannot depend on any
party's act or inaction," Marquez said.
"We will ask the Justice secretary and Immigration officials why they did not
comply with the order," Marquez said, noting that De Lima could be held in
contempt for defying the order, an offense that carries a fine of up to P30,000
or imprisonment of up to six months, or both.
Marquez also said fears that the former President might escape once abroad
was not a basis for defying the Court's order. The government had many remedies
if that should happen.
"Those are just fears. The high court decided on the facts of the situation,"
Marquez said.
"We must respect the constitutional rights of the petitioners. If there is no
charge filed against her, the Constitution allows her the right to travel, and
we must respect it."
Marquez said the Court would hold a special en banc session Friday to discuss
the petitions from the Arroyos, as well as the Justice Department's motion for
reconsideration questioning its temporary restraining order.
In Congress, lawmakers warned that the government's refusal to carry out the
Supreme Court order would lead to a constitutional crisis.
"What happened last night [Tuesday] was a declaration of war [by] the
Executive on the Supreme Court," Senator Joker Arroyo said.
"This is a crisis. They no longer follow the Supreme Court."
Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said De Lima should reconsider her
actions "if only to spare the administration from further embarrassment and from
courting unnecessary trouble."
Senator Francis Escudero singled out De Lima for criticism, saying any
freshman law student knew that a TRO may not be questioned through a motion for
reconsideration, and that even with a pending motion it's implementation may not
be deferred.
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago blamed the looming crisis on "a clique"
within the Palace advising President Benigno Aquino III to tell De Lima to
challenge the Supreme Court.
"She did not act on this alone," Santiago said.
"There is a desire for vengeance against Arroyo and in the rush to judgment,
there is no more regard for the Constitution... We have to respect the law.
That's the very anchor of our democratic society."
But Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, an administration ally, justified De Lima's
actions because those balanced human rights against "the right of the government
to protect itself."
In the House of Representatives, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte played down the
likelihood of a constitutional crisis, saying tthe worst that could happen was
that the Court would find De Lima in contempt.
But Maguindanao Rep. Simeon Datumanong, who served as Justice secretary in
the Arroyo administration, said De Lima was inviting "a direct conflict between
the Executive branch and the Judiciary."
House Minority Leader Edcel Lagman said the opposition was considering filing
an impeachment complaint against President Aquino for defying the Supreme Court
order.
"It's a sad day indeed when the very person who ought to be leading all of us
is the same person who singles out some of us for the cruelty of his personal
animosities and political calculations," Lagman said of Mr. Aquino.
"The Palace's defiance of the Supreme Court culminates the sordid history of
its latest attempts to lynch former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo."
Minority lawmakers also sought an investigation of De Lima's refusal to carry
out the temporary restraining order.
Leftist Rep. Emmi de Jesus of Gabriela blamed the Aquino administration for
wasting its 500 days in office by failing to file a single case against Mrs.
Arroyo.
Civil society groups such as the Black and White Movement that supported the
President, however, defended De Lima, as did the chairwoman of the Commission on
Human Rights, Eta Rosales, who said the rights of the many took precedence over
the rights of the individual.
On Tuesday, Mrs. Arroyo's husband attacked the Aquino administration for
blocking their departure.
"They are very mean. They are very cruel," he said.
"I feel sad. I feel mad. How can they refuse to follow the Supreme Court
order? That is tyranny." With John Anthony Concepcion,
Christine F. Herrera, Vito Barcelo
FROM THE
TRIBUNE
Gov't to blame for SC TRO mess —
Magsaysay By Charlie V. Manalo 11/18/2011
[POLITICAL FOES!]
Zambales Rep. Milagros "Mitos" Magsaysay yesterday said that the government
is to blame for the media circus that has resulted from former President, now
Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's failed attempt to leave the country to
seek medical attention.
"If the government is getting flak for not following the temporary
restraining order (TRO) that the Supreme Court itself has decided to grant the
Arroyos, it is their own fault because in the first place, they have not yet
filed any case against the Arroyos. Meaning, under the Constitution, they cannot
stop any person from their right to travel," Magsaysay said.
"Now that the TRO has been granted, they are stalling for time and rushing so
that they could file their case, praying for a technicality. They keep saying
that they have strong and overwhelming evidence against the Arroyos and their
misdeeds in the past administration but so far, all they have managed to do is
crucify the former first family in the media without substantiating their case
in the courts," the solon added.
Magsaysay said that she has been saying all along that the government should
file charges against the former first family if they feel that they have enough
evidence to hold Mrs. Arroyo and her family accountable for various anomalies
during her administration but none have materialized so far.
"The administration should not use its power to manipulate the system. They
talked the talk but they failed to walk the walk and that is why we are at this
predicament today, so they should not be sore losers and just follow the rule of
law," said Magsaysay.
Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman reminded the Aquino
administration that all the adjudications of the Supreme Court and all inferior
courts are anchored on real facts and legal verities, and not on imagined fears
and partisan speculations.
Lagman made the statement in the light of the administration's continued
refusal to abide by the SC's TRO allowing Mrs. Arroyo to travel abroad as the
DoJ insists the former leader is facing numerous cases.
"In the case of the right to travel of the former First Couple, the real
facts are: (a) there are no pending cases filed against them in any court of
law; (b) there is no hold departure order (HDO) issued against them by any
competent court; and (c) former President Gloria Arroyo is suffering from a rare
ailment necessitating her treatment abroad," said Lagman.
The legal verities according to Lagman are: (a) the liberty to travel is
guaranteed under the Bill of Rights; (b) the right to travel cannot be impaired
except in the interest of national security, public safety or public health as
provided by law, not one of which obtains relative to the projected travel of
the Arroyos; (c) the watchlist orders issued by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima
are not equivalent to an HDO; (d) the Supreme Court has issued a temporary
restraining order (TRO) upholding the Arroyos' right to travel and restraining
the enforcement of the DoJ Circular No. 41 and the WLOs issued by De Lima.
The solon stressed that those factual and legal realities cannot be
overlooked or supplanted by the Aquino administration's mere imagined fears and
baseless speculations that the Arroyos are flight risks and would seek political
asylum abroad.
Even if the Joint DoJ-Comelec panel would rush the filing of an information
for poll sabotage against the former First Couple, Lagman said such filing will
not automatically result in barring the Arroyos' departure because: (a) The
Supreme Court has still to decide on the petition challenging the validity of
the formation of the said panel;
(b) The resolution finding probable cause is subject to a motion for
reconsideration and subsequent appeal before the higher courts; (c) A hold
departure order (HDO) has to be issued by the proper court after due notice and
hearing, which issuance is likewise subject to a motion for reconsideration and
appeal; and
(d) An HDO can only be issued based on the three grounds prescribed by the
Constitution justifying the impairment of the right to travel.
Lagman added De Lima cannot justify her open defiance of the Supreme Court's
TRO on the pendency of the government's motion for reconsideration because
entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that a motion for reconsideration or
an appeal cannot stay the execution of a TRO.
Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2011 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All
rights reserved
PHILIPPINE
HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
phno-digest@yahoogroups.com
phno-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
