MALAYA: DID GMA DISSEMBLE?
MANILA, NOVEMBER 21, 2011 (MALAYA) AMADO P. MACASAET - 'In this specific case, it does not seem any different from making a pact with the devil under the barrel of a gun.'
IN her dissent against the order allowing former President Gloria Arroyo to travel abroad for medical reasons, Justice Maria Lourdes P. Sereno explicitly admits that nobody in the court ever even talked about one's right to travel.
That means the Court was unanimous in believing that that right is given.
The lady justice dissented against the majority of eight for a different reason.
She asserts that Gloria Arroyo did not exactly tell the truth to the Court when she filed the petition for a temporary restraining order against the watch list/hold-departure decision of the Secretary of Justice.
Justice Sereno quotes GMA's petition which states, "It is petitioner GMA's desire to consult with medical experts of her choice and to receive specialized care and medical attention from other institutions.
"Having been immobilized by a debilitating condition for the last few months, and having been subject to long operations and their complications, she seeks other experts' perspective and to receive optimum care to ensure that she will not be disabled for the rest of her life and that her recovery will no longer be impeded by complications which she has unfortunately experienced for the last few months."
To this claim, Justice Sereno had this to say: "(However) her own attachments belie the immediate threat to life she claims."
According to her 11-page dissent (against the four-page ruling), Mrs. Arroyo's own physician, Dr. Juliet Gopez Cervantes, certified that the former President should fully recover from her spine surgery in six to eight months.
The dissent states that the itinerary of Gloria Arroyo "appears not solely for medical reasons as claimed. Only three countries, namely Singapore, Germany, and Spain" are identified for her visit.
This is so stated in the letter dated Nov. 2 of her counsel, Anacleto Diaz.
In the travel authority issued by the House of Representatives on Oct. 19, 2011, the itinerary includes the United States and Italy.
According to the dissent, "If there is indeed some medical urgency and necessity … to travel abroad, these should logically be limited only to countries where she seeks medical advice from known experts in the field."
Justice Sereno pointedly asks: "Why then should there be other countries of destination that are included in her travel authority but not specifically mentioned for purposes of medical consultations? What is the non-medical purpose of her visit to these other countries?"
Supporting her belief that Gloria Arroyo, now representative of Pampanga, has other reasons to travel apart from seeking medical treatment, Justice Sereno says the former president had expressed her intention to participate in two conferences abroad during her supposed medical tour.
Continuing, she says, "It seems incongruous for petitioner (Gloria Arroyo) who has asked the Department of Justice and this Court to look with humanitarian concern on her precarious state of health, to commit herself to attend these meetings and conferences at the risk of worsening her physical condition."
Justice Sereno claims that if it has been shown that Mrs. Arroyo is prone to "submitting … documents belying her own allegations, this Court must pause, and at the very least, listen to the side of the Government."
The petition was filed ex parte. The TRO was granted without hearing the side of the state.
Without so saying, Justice Sereno bats for the Rules of Court, a section of which provides that before a TRO can be issued, the application should be verified. She points out that the facts so stated in the petition should clearly show the applicant is entitled to the relief.
How do these sit with the discovery – strangely, it appears only Justice Sereno noticed it –that Congresswoman Arroyo lied about her itinerary and also practically denied the truth of the certification of her own physician, which certification Mrs. Arroyo herself might have sought?
When the requirement of truthful allegations are violated, "many adverse inferences and disciplinary measures can be imposed against a person lying before the court," Justice Sereno points out.
She says, "When on its face, the material averments of a pleading contain self-contradictions, the least that the Court should do, is consider the other side of the claim," that of government.
Instead of Mrs. Arroyo getting her just desserts, the Court rebuked the watch list/holder ruling of the Department of Justice.
The problem of course is the harsh reality that orders of the Supreme Court are all lawful and must be complied with. In this specific case, it does not seem any different from making a pact with the devil under the barrel of a gun.
----------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------
