Confusion marks early reports on Arroyo

Former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo AP PHOTO

It was neither a trick nor a treat.

For a moment on Monday, reporters thought former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would be able to walk away from detention at Veterans Memorial Medical Center in Quezon City, courtesy of a purported temporary restraining order (TRO) from the Supreme Court (SC).

This was after the court’s information office advised reporters that the high tribunal would issue and upload a “copy of the SC TRO on former GMA’s arraignment before the Sandiganbayan on the PCSO/plunder case.”

But when reporters finally got the copy, they asked the information office why the TRO was not addressed to Arroyo, now a Pampanga representative, but to someone else.

After a few hours, the office clarified through text and e-mail that the TRO was actually on the arrest order of one of Arroyo’s coaccused in the plunder case involving the alleged misuse of funds of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO).

“This is to clarify that the Oct. 24, 2012, TRO issued by the Court’s Third Division in GR Nos. 203693-94, Plaras v. Sandiganbayan, enjoins the implementation of the warrant of arrest against petitioner Nilda Plaras as ordered in the assailed resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated Oct.3, 2012, in Criminal Case no. SB-12-CRM-0174,” said Maria Victoria Gleoresty Sp. Guerra, the court spokesperson.

What the high court decision meant was that it was stopping the arrest order by the Sandiganbayan on Plaras, former Commission on Audit intelligence fund unit head, and asking prosecutors to comment within 10 days. Plaras said that she had been a victim of “grave abuse of discretion.”

While Arroyo’s camp had petitioned the high court on Oct. 24 for the issuance of a TRO almost similar appeal to that of Plaras, the Pampanga representative has to wait until the magistrates return from its nine-day All Saints’ Day break, or until Nov. 6.

The erroneous report of the court’s early information, which it later backtracked, elicited a joyous reaction from Arroyo’s lawyers, a fleeting sound bite.

Said Ferdinand Topacio in a statement: “It is a reaffirmation of our consistent stand that the grave accusations against the former President should not be viewed in the darkness of the thunderstorms being conjured in Malacañang, based on tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing, to paraphrase Shakespeare.”