MANILA, Philippines - Malacañang said it will respect a Supreme Court temporary restraining order (TRO) on a government travel ban on former president and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who is now under hospital arrest.
Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda gave the assurance even as Arroyo’s lawyers were reportedly preparing to file a petition for bail with the Supreme Court (SC) which, if approved, would test the administration’s commitment to abide by the TRO by finally allowing Arroyo to seek treatment abroad for her troublesome cervical spine.
“The warrant of arrest issued by the Pasay City regional trial court takes precedence over the TRO,” Lacierda stressed.
The SC has declared that the TRO has been in effect all along and has never been suspended even if the Arroyo camp had not complied with all the conditions set for its issuance.
Voting 9-4, the high tribunal affirmed its Nov. 18 resolution declaring that the TRO it issued three days earlier was still “in full force and effect.” This after the justices, in a vote of 7-6, found Arroyo’s compliance with its order to be “not substantial.”
On the same day the TRO was issued, Arroyo and her entourage attempted to board a plane bound for Hong Kong but were prevented from doing so by immigration personnel acting on orders of Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Leila de Lima. The SC as well as Arroyo supporters called it a defiance of a court order.
“The court resolved to clarify that the TRO was not suspended even with the finding that there was no full compliance with the conditions of the TRO,” SC spokesman Midas Marquez told a news briefing.
“There was… some sort of confusion whether the TRO was in full force and effect pending full compliance of the petitioner, and that is why the court had to make a clarification,” he added.
Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno earlier said a majority of the justices had moved to suspend the injunctive order during the SC’s special session on Nov. 18.
“There was just a misunderstanding and confusion so the court resolved to clarify. I think that issue should rest for now,” Marquez said.
Lacierda also said the government is ready to block any plea for bail by the Arroyo camp.
“We will oppose any application for bail,” Lacierda said.
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) is handling the prosecution of Arroyo for electoral sabotage before the sala of Judge Jesus Mupas of the Pasay City Regional Trial Court branch 112.
“We will oppose on the grounds stated by the law. We will apply the rules of procedure, which is wait for the Comelec to raise that opposition, not me,” Lacierda said.
“Remember that in capital offenses bail is not a matter of right. It’s now subject to the discretion of the courts. So, ordinarily and most likely, if they file a motion or if they ask for bail, we will oppose that,” Lacierda stressed.
“It’s a capital offense. If you’re the prosecution, your most likely action is to oppose bail,” he said.
“You’re not going to say: Yes, go ahead and ask for bail. That’s standard procedure. You don’t have to be a law student to say that. You will have to oppose bail as a standard procedure,” he pointed out.
Unfazed
De Lima, meanwhile, said she is ready to defend her travel ban on Arroyo before the SC today even with the high court’s denial of her request to make the doctors of the former president testify on her real health condition.
“I would have wanted a full ventilation of that issue with the doctors around. But since there was already denial I will be constrained to argue on the issue without the doctors,” De Lima told reporters Tuesday evening after the oral argument on another case filed by Arroyo with the SC questioning her indictment for poll sabotage.
She vowed to prove before the high tribunal in this afternoon’s oral argument that she had made the right decision in issuing the watchlist order (WLO) against Arroyo and denying the latter’s request for an allow departure order (ADO).
De Lima said it would have been better if the high court had granted her motion to subpoena Arroyo’s doctors “since medical abstract submitted by the former president are in fact medical and technical so justices and lawyers are not familiar with the terminologies.”
She also questioned the reason cited by the high court in denying her request – that the doctors have already appeared before the Pasay City RTC hearing the case of the former president.
“I think their testimony there was limited to the issue on whether or not she needs continuing confinement, at least on the day they were subpoenaed by the Pasay RTC. The issue in the SC is different because we want to make the SC understand that we had good reasons to deny the ADO,” she said.
Still, the Justice chief said she has no choice but to just explain to the justices the circumstances behind her actions against the petitioner to prove that there was no grave abuse of discretion on her part as alleged by the camp of Arroyo.
“The number one reason I cited in my order denying the ADO was because I was not convinced that there was medical necessity or urgency,” she pointed out.
The high court earlier issued a show cause order on De Lima for her alleged defiance of a TRO on the implementation of the WLO on Arroyo.
De Lima’s reported defiance of an SC order has also prompted private lawyer Ricardo Rivera to file a disbarment case against the DOJ chief, President Aquino’s most popular Cabinet secretary based on surveys.
She said she decided to disregard the TRO for various reasons: non-receipt of a copy of the order, her belief that the order was not yet final and executory, and failure of Arroyo’s camp to satisfy the conditions laid down by the court in issuing the TRO.
She said a TRO may only be effective upon service to concerned party or person and not through media announcements.
She added that the TRO, being based on specific conditions, would only be effective immediately if the conditions are met.
She said that even in the Nov. 18 show-cause order of the court, it was noted that there was no factual compliance by petitioners with the condition of the TRO.
In issuing the TRO, the high court required Arroyo to post a cash bond of P2 million and to appoint a lawyer who would receive subpoenas and other legal documents related to the ongoing investigation into her involvement in election fraud. The SC also required Arroyo to inform the Philippine embassy or consulate of her arrival in a country where she would supposedly seek medical treatment.
Last week De Lima asked the SC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, to subpoena Arroyo’s doctors from St. Luke’s Medical Center – Mario Ver, Juliet Gopez-Cervantes, and Roberto Mirasol.
The DOJ chief said she wanted the doctors themselves to set the record straight on Arroyo’s health.
But Arroyo’s lawyers Estelito Mendoza and Anacleto Diaz argued that the testimonies of the doctors would be irrelevant in establishing the constitutionality of Circular No. 41 used as basis by the DOJ in issuing the WLO on the former president.
Arroyo’s counsels stressed that the SC is not a trier of facts, meaning it cannot resolve questions of facts and evidence that are generally left to trial courts and the Court of Appeals to settle.
Comments
Post a Comment