Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo lawyer seeks SC ruling on DOJ circular | Inquirer News

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo lawyer seeks SC ruling on DOJ circular

By: - Reporter / @NikkoDizonINQ
/ 04:56 AM September 18, 2011

The election lawyer of former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on Saturday called on the Supreme Court to rule on the validity of a circular that gave the secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ) the power to place persons on the hold departure or travel watch list.

Arroyo’s husband, Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo, earlier questioned a DOJ order that placed him on the watch list after witnesses in a Senate inquiry linked him to the controversial purchase of second-hand helicopters by the Philippine National Police.

In a ruling last week, the high court dismissed Mike’s petition for being “moot and academic” after the Senate indicated it would no longer invite him to testify.

Article continues after this advertisement

But for lawyer Romulo Macalintal, the “question over the legality” of the DOJ circular must still be resolved since the department could use it “again” against Mike Arroyo.

FEATURED STORIES

“There is that useful purpose of resolving the said issue in the Arroyo petition for future guidance by lawyers and the courts and to avoid the so-called ‘root or branch that may bear the seeds of future litigations,’ ” Macalintal said.

“While there is that rule that courts may decline jurisdiction over moot cases, such rule is not absolute as decided by the Supreme Court,” the lawyer argued.

Article continues after this advertisement

Macalintal cited a recent case, Villando vs the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, which he said the Supreme Court decided on Aug. 23 even if it was already moot “on the grounds that the issue raised in the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.”

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS: Supreme Court

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.