MANILA, Philippines—Don’t shoot the messenger, please.
Thus did Jose Midas Marquez, the Supreme Court administrator and spokesman, defend himself on Sunday from allegations that he intentionally fed the media with erroneous information about the result of the tribunal’s special en banc session last Friday on the ticklish issue of former President and now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s foreign travel.
Reacting to Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno’s dissenting opinion, Marquez stood firm on his earlier statement that the high court deemed the temporary restraining order (TRO) “in full force and effect,” thus, allowing Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo, to leave the country.
This despite the high court’s conclusion that Arroyo’s lawyer, Ferdinand Topacio, failed to comply with its condition on the appointment of her legal representative.
“I’m standing by what I announced (during the press conference),” Marquez told the Philippine Daily Inquirer over the phone.
“That’s what (the justices who voted with) the majority told me. That’s the position of the majority,” he added.
In her nine-page dissenting opinion, Sereno warned Marquez not to “go beyond his role,” noting that he had “no authority to interpret any of our judicial issuances, including the present resolution.”
The justice said it was “a function (Marquez) never had from the beginning.”
She claimed the majority ruled that the TRO was “suspended pending compliance” with its November 15 resolution.
But Marquez said no less than Chief Justice Renato Corona, who voted to let Arroyo seek treatment abroad for her degenerative bone disease, explained to him what transpired during the closed-door deliberations.
“I also spoke with other justices in the majority and I got the same information,” he said.
In an e-mailed statement, Marquez said while Sereno was entitled to her own view, her “dissenting opinion is just that – a dissent.”
“The Supreme Court is a collegial body of 15 justices and it is not very often that it decides cases unanimously…. And like (in) any democratic process, the majority view prevails,” he said.
“Justice Sereno has so eloquently made her point. We should all respect that. However, hers did not get the majority vote. We should not lose sight of the fact that a dissenting opinion is just that – a dissent,” he added.
As the high tribunal’s spokesman in the last five years, he said he had always observed prudence in announcing the court’s rulings.
Marquez said he was aware that, as Sereno noted, he had no authority to make his own interpretation of the decisions issued by the magistrates.
“(T)he reminder is much appreciated. But please understand that as spokesman, I too have a very important obligation to the media and the public, that they clearly understand the decision of the Court,” Marquez said.
“The decision may not always be popular, but that is the decision of the Court, taking into consideration the rule of law. So please don’t shoot the messenger.”
The public should understand that “the dissenting view is (not) the controlling view,” Marquez said.
“While it may be repeatedly publicized and broadcast by those who agree with it, it remains a minority view. The majority view always prevails and must be complied with,” he stressed.
Marquez reiterated that while the justices resolved that Arroyo’s compliance was “not substantial,” they also agreed that “there was no need to suspend the effectivity of the TRO.”
“This is the majority view, and as spokesman of the High Court, this is what I announced,” Marquez said.
He also clarified that contrary to Sereno’s observation, the Clerk of Court “does not issue the TRO after the conditions set forth in a conditional TRO are met.”
He said if the conditions stated by a provisional order issued by the tribunal through the Clerk of Court were complied with, “the TRO ipso facto takes effect.”
“Thus, there can hardly be any ‘human mistake (which is) understandable on the part of the Clerk of Court’ as mentioned (by Sereno),” Marquez said.
This was not the first time that Sereno had admonished Marquez for his supposed “incorrect” statement to the media.
Along with Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, the lady justice said the court spokesman erred when he said in a news briefing that all the magistrates had received a copy of then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez’s petition before the court en banc voted to stop the impeachment proceedings against the latter.
In his March 4 letter to Marquez, Carpio said: “I request that you make the necessary correction to media.”
“(U)nfortunately all your statements to media are incorrect,” Carpio said.
Carpio said Johnny Aquino, a process server in the Office of the Clerk of Court, admitted that he distributed copies of Gutierrez’s petition to the magistrates on the afternoon of September 14, hours after the tribunal moved to grant the Ombudsman’s petition.