TRO for Arroyo still in force –Supreme Court
Supreme Court spokesperson and Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
The Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified that it did not suspend the temporary restraining order (TRO) it granted to former President and now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo despite her failure to fully comply with the conditions of the injunctive relief.
Voting 9-4, the high tribunal affirmed its November 18 resolution which declared 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.”
At a news briefing, court administrator and spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez said the high court en banc issued the clarification amid allegations that the justices had temporarily recalled the TRO.
“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,” Marquez said.
“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.
The court’s latest resolution debunked the claim of Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno that majority of the justices moved to suspend the injunctive order during its special session on Nov. 18.
The TRO prevented Justice Secretary Leila de Lima from enforcing the travel ban she issued against Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo.
“There was just a misunderstanding and confusion so the court resolved to clarify. I think that issue should rest for now,” he said.
The Supreme Court on TUesday also blocked the move of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to summon the attending physicians of Arroyo in a bid to justify De Lima’s decision to bar her from going abroad.
Voting unanimously, the 15-member high tribunal ruled that there was no need to compel the doctors to appear on Thursday during the continuation of the oral arguments on the constitutionality of De Lima’s watch list order against the Arroyos.
“The motion has been denied because the doctors have already appeared before the Pasay (City) Regional Trial Court,” Marquez said.
Sought for comment, De Lima said the DOJ, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), would seek a reconsideration of the tribunal’s decision.
She stressed the importance of compelling the doctors to appear at the oral arguments, arguing that the magistrates would have a better understanding of the medical abstract that Arroyo’s lawyers submitted to the high tribunal if her doctors would explain their findings.
“Since they are not familiar with those, it would be better if we hear it from the doctors themselves,” she added.
