Palace: If TRO not final, how can De Lima be held in contempt?

President Benigno Aquino III’s spokesperson has floated a counterargument for Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, who is facing contempt charges for defying a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court.

Edwin Lacierda on Saturday used his Twitter account to defend the embattled De Lima, who had ordered immigration and airport officials to bar former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from leaving the country on Nov. 15 despite the TRO.

On Nov. 18, the high court ordered De Lima to explain within 10 days why she should not be cited for indirect contempt for defying the TRO. The charge carries a fine of not more than P30,000 or imprisonment of up to six months, or both.

Lacierda argued that the high court had put conditions on the TRO, which Arroyo had supposedly failed to fully comply with.

“If [the] TRO was issued by [the Supreme Court] with conditions and [the] conditions were not complied with, how can it be immediately executory? And if [the] TRO was not immediately executory, how can De Lima be held in contempt as prayed for by the Arroyos when there was no effective TRO?” Lacierda tweeted to his 10,750 followers in the popular microblogging site.

Replying to another Twitter account, he said: “She didn’t defy [the TRO] and there was nothing to defy in the first place since the TRO was ineffective.”

Voting 8-5 on Nov. 15, the high court issued a TRO, which, in effect, allowed Arroyo and her husband to go abroad, ostensibly for medical treatment. But the following conditions were set—Arroyo and her husband should post a P2-million cash bond, appoint a legal representative, and inform the Philippine embassy or consulate in the country they intended to visit.

Lacierda cited the dissenting opinion of Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, who castigated Supreme Court spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez for allegedly “interpreting” the ruling of the tribunal.

He tweeted: “It was right for government to wait for a formal copy of the SC resolution rather than rely on the SC spokesperson, who was corrected by J[ustice] Sereno.”