Hello iPad user! You should definitelydownload and try our free iPad app!

Published

Justice Sereno on the TRO and the Chief Justice

The testimony of Secretary of Justice Leila de Lima focused on her reasons for issuing a Watch List Order vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and husband; and what has become much-discussed are the dissenting opinions of Associate Justice Maylou Sereno concerning the TRO issued by the Supreme Court.

  1. On November 18, 2011, Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was arrested. Prior to that, in the evening of November 15, 2011, Mrs. Arroyo tried her Great Escape, under cover of a TRO issued by the Supreme Court. She was not allowed to leave.
  2. Mrs. Arroyo had been ordered placed on a Watch List by Secretary de Lima. Her authority to do so was based on a Department of Justice Order, consolidating previous departmental issuances, which had been issued in the closing months of Mrs. Arroyo's term as president. 
  3. Secretary de Lima testified in the Senate on her reasons for, first of all, denying GMA's request for an Allow Departure Order to enable to leave the country. Here is her written denial of the request of Mrs. Arroyo: 
  4. Mrs. Arroyo petitioned the Supreme Court to order the Department of Justice to let her leave the country. The Supreme Court decided to grant her request, with conditions. The most comprehensive dissenting opinion was penned by Associate Justice Maylou Sereno, pointing to the high court's not asking the government to explain its side, when Justice de Lima had covered every justification put forward by the Arroyos:
  5. On December 15, 2011, Secretary de Lima issued a statement in response to a statement by the Chief Justice. She called Renato Corona a "walking constitutional violation."
  6. Even before the issues could be discussed in the Supreme Court, Mrs. Arroyo was placed under arrest upon orders of the Pasay Regional Trial Court.
  7. When the Secretary of Justice refused to allow Mrs. Arroyo to leave, the Supreme Court in turn asked her to explain why she did that. 
  8. A legal blog pointed out that there are instances when there is resistance to orders from the court, when the order is seen to go against that which the TRO itself was supposed to achieve. As the blog linked to below put it,

    "In other words, the status quo which is required to be preserved in this case is that government is poised to indict the former president for crimes committed during her office. That Congressman Arroyo was scheduled to leave the country is not “the last peaceable and uncontested status” because precisely her right to leave the country and the validity of the restriction imposed by the Watch List Order is the very lis mota of her petition before the Supreme Court. To allow her to leave and eventually avoid prosecution for her alleged offenses  would destroy or change the status quo rather than preserve it."
  9. Still, the Supreme Court met to decide on what to do about Mrs. Arroyo not having managed to leave; along the way, Associate Justice Sereno published (after raising hell after it turned out there were instructions from the Chief Justice not to permit publication of her dissent) another dissent, chronicling how the Supreme Court Spokesman, Midas Marquez, did not faithfully publicize the actual agreement among the Justices.
  10. In a commentary on the Articles of Impeachment, lawyer Edsel Tupaz summarizes Article VII, and its weight as a charge:

    "Focusing on this article may be a better bet for the House prosecution panel, since the facts surrounding the case point to a clearer bias in favor of the petitioners. The Supreme Court had immediately granted and issued a TRO, despite inconsistencies in Arroyo's petition and her failure to comply with an essential precondition for issuing the TRO. The issuance also violated internal Supreme Court rules that required five days of hearings as recommended by the ponente. The impeachment complaint asserts that the 'hasty issuance of the TRO was a brazen accommodation to the Arroyos,' pointing to a possible motive of 'personal gain and commitment to his midnight benefactor.' However, the prosecution would further need to prove that it was through Corona's undue influence that the Justices voted to issue the TRO in an eight to five majority."

Did you find this story interesting? Be the first to or comment.

Liked!
Total views
1802