High court affirms TRO: It still stands

The Supreme Court on Friday affirmed its decision to allow former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to travel abroad despite strong opposition from the Aquino administration.

But later in the day, shortly after a Pasay City court ordered Arroyo’s arrest, the high court’s administrator and spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez announced that the former President could no longer leave the country.

Marquez said, however, that the temporary restraining order (TRO) that the high court issued on Tuesday on the inclusion of Arroyo and her husband in the immigration watch list “still stands.”

“But if you’re going to ask whether the former President can still leave, she is now barred because of the warrant of arrest,” Marquez said in a hastily called news briefing.

He added: “Technically, the order allowing Arroyo to travel and the TRO on her watch list are now moot. Since there is now an arrest warrant in an entirely different case, then [Arroyo] will have to contend with that.

“The arrest warrant will now take precedence.”

Maintaining its 8-5 vote on the issue, the high court threw out the appeal of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Office of the Solicitor General during the special full-court session called by Chief Justice Renato Corona.

The DOJ, represented by Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz, had asked the high court for the immediate lifting of the TRO

Marquez said all 13 justices who took part in the previous en banc session maintained their vote on the thorny issue of the travel ban on Arroyo.

“This is just a reiteration of the same arguments which the justices had in the first en banc session. The majority kept its arguments on the right to life and the constitutional presumption of innocence since a case has yet to be filed against [Arroyo],” Marquez said at a news briefing.

He said the tribunal also denied the request of Arroyo’s lawyer, Estelito Mendoza, to move the oral arguments set on Nov. 22 to an earlier date.

Joining Corona in the majority were Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Roberto Abad, Martin Villarama Jr. and Jose Perez—all appointees of Arroyo.

Of the five dissenters, three are appointees of President Aquino—Associate Justices Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Bienvenido Reyes and Estela Perlas-Bernabe.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justice Jose Mendoza sided with the minority.

Summons for De Lima

Marquez said the tribunal had summoned Justice Secretary Leila de Lima to explain why she should not be held in contempt for her refusal to implement the TRO, which “the justices deemed as disrespect of the court.”

“[De Lima] is directed to show cause and comply within a non-extendible period of 10 days why she should not be held in contempt of court and comply with the TRO,” Marquez said.

Asked to explain the tribunal’s directive, he said: “Apparently, the court took into consideration the pronouncements made by [De Lima], and therefore the court thought that there may be disrespect on that point.”

If found guilty of indirect contempt, De Lima may be ordered to pay a fine of not more than P30,000 or face imprisonment of up to six months, “or both,” Marquez said, adding that the penalty “is left to the discretion of the court.”

In a notice issued by clerk of court Enriqueta Vidal, the tribunal directed De Lima to explain why she failed to “immediately comply” with the TRO “by allowing the [Arroyos] to leave the country.”

Marquez said the court ordered Ferdinand Topacio, the lawyer of Arroyo’s husband, Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo, to submit a supplemental compliance of its earlier order for the couple to appoint their legal representatives as part of the conditions to be met under the issuance of the TRO.

He said Topacio had failed to include the word “received” in the portion of the special power of attorney that Mike Arroyo signed. “But just the same, the TRO stays in full force and effect,” he said.

In another press conference, Marquez clarified that the tribunal voted 7-6 to declare Topacio’s compliance, dated Nov. 15, as “not substantial.”

By the same vote, the magistrates ruled that there was “no need to suspend the affectivity of the TRO,” he said. “As far as this court is concerned, because this TRO stays in effect, then the Arroyo couple can leave.

“So I’m calling on our executive officials. The court has already, in effect, reiterated its TRO. I hope that this [order] will be respected and complied with.”

Long discussion

According to Marquez, the justices spent more than one hour to discuss the three pending petitions concerning the travel ban that De Lima had issued on Arroyo.

He said Friday’s deliberation lasted longer than the “unusually longer” en banc session that the court held on Tuesday.

As to De Lima’s argument that the three conditions that the high court set before allowing Arroyo and her husband to leave the country were not enough to ensure their return, Marquez said the DOJ could seek other remedies.

“Their passports can be canceled. They can also be sought out by our officials in coordination with officials of the foreign country,” he said.

Marquez also said the calls for Corona and Brion to inhibit from the case because they had previously worked directly under Arroyo “is a personal decision for the justices to make.”

“As long as the justice can maintain his or her impartiality, then there is no reason for him or her to inhibit. In this case, since all of them participated, all 13 of them can maintain their respective impartiality,” he said.