‘Unnecessary’: Solon questions SC’s TRO on House contempt order vs Governor Mamba
FILE PHOTO: Cagayan Governor Manuel Mamba. Photo from Cagayan Provincial Information Office Facebook page
MANILA, Philippines — A Supreme Court (SC) official was questioned about the temporary restraining order (TRO) against a House of Representatives panel’s decision to cite Cagayan Governor Manuel Mamba for contempt, as it supposedly goes against the congressional power to investigate in aid of legislation.
At the House Committee on appropriations hearing on Thursday to deliberate the Judiciary’s proposed 2024 national budget, Sagip party-list Rep. Rodante Marcoleta asked why the TRO was issued despite SC upholding in the past the Congress’ right to cite “defiant and contumacious witnesses” for contempt.
Marcoleta said that the House Committee on public accounts and the Committee on suffrage and electoral reforms could have pushed through with Mamba’s detention, but they want to avoid a constitutional crisis.
“So while we were in our duty to receive him and make his explanation, we did not know that on August 22 he filed a petition before the [SC] with a prayer for TRO. To us that was an insult, so as a matter of fact we could disregard the TRO because the joint committee had jurisdiction over the person of the provincial governor at 9:00 o’clock in the morning, the TRO came at 5:53 in the afternoon, but we don’t want to do that in respect to a co-equal branch of government,” he said.
Court Administrator Raul Villanueva however clarified that the issuance of a TRO against the House panels’ bid to cite Mamba for contempt and detain him did not mean that past decisions or jurisprudence was abandoned.
Article continues after this advertisement“May I just state your Honor that the issuance of the TRO does not mean that the previous ruling or doctrines of the Supreme Court on the matter have been abandoned. This is a preliminary or provision remedy that is something that the Supreme Court can look into, likewise it’s not a final disposition of the case,” Villanueva replied to Marcoleta.
Article continues after this advertisement“May I just also state for the record your Honor that as of the present, Governor Mamba is now the subject of a show-cause order because what happened perhaps after the hearing of one of the honorable committees of this chamber, there was a withdrawal apparently of the petition that he filed so he was asked to show-cause,” he added.
READ: SC orders Cagayan governor to explain actions
Mamba, the subject of an investigation of the two panels due to alleged cash aid distribution during a period where such activity is banned by election laws, was summoned by the House and ordered detained for not appearing for three months.
READ: Cagayan Gov. Mamba ordered detained for failing to attend House hearing
Last August 24, Mamba presented himself to the panel, and explained that he was unable to attend hearings due to the provincial government focusing on post-calamity response.
Cagayan was hit by Typhoon Egay and the southwest monsoon-induced rains, causing floods in different areas.
READ: Cagayan Gov. Mamba says he was excused from House hearings
READ: Cagayan governor shows up at House hearing on public spending ban
House officials were ready to have Mamba detained, but he was eventually released after the Supreme Court (SC) issued the TRO.
Marcoleta claimed that the TRO was unnecessary, especially against a co-equal branch of government.
“Why would you issue a TRO? This is basic, we know that the merits of the case are not disposed, but the fact that you issued a TRO to a co-equal and coordinate branch of government, what if Congress will file a bill relieving the judicial power of review, or what if we say that the crafting of the rules is no longer their responsibility — we cannot do that,” he said.
“This is what we are asking — how do we correct this, the TRO was there already, and we were made to comment in five days, sir,” he asked.
As a former judge, I will be the last, not the first to assail the decision of the Supreme Court especially if it’s a preliminary action on its part.
But Villanueva maintained that SC only acted on the petitioner’s prayer, noting that issuing a TRO is within the High Tribunal’s purview.
“My answer is no, that it’s not (unnecessary). To me, personally your Honor, I hope you don’t mind, as a lawyer, and as a former judge your Honor — I’m not answering as a current court administrator — but I would want to believe that it is something that I have to respect,” Villanueva said.
“Is the TRO necessary? You can receive the petition without issuing a TRO considering what he (Mamba) did,” Marcoleta answered back.
“That is correct your Honor but since there is a prayer your Honor, and the Court in its initial assessment decided to issue it — if it was not there your Honor then that would have been wrong,” Villanueva replied.
Villanueva also reiterated that Mamba is being asked to explain why he sought the Court’s protection but went to the hearing anyway, without informing SC.
After Marcoleta’s interpellation, 1-Pacman party-list Rep. Michael Romero also asked the scope of the Congress’ contempt orders. However, presiding officer and Davao de Oro 2nd District Rep. Ruwel Peter Gonzaga asked the lawmakers to focus on deliberating the Judiciary’s budget instead.
