Manila (Philippine Daily
Inquirer/ANN)- One would have thought that with the arrest and incarceration
of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the matter of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima's
defiance of its temporary restraining order (TRO) on Arroyo's travel ban would
be uppermost in the Supreme Court's mind.
But that doesn't seem to be the
case (pardon the pun) at all. From the opinions uploaded three days ago on the
Court's website, the justices seem to be more interested in engaging each other
in what looks like an all-out war, the niceties be damned, with regard to the
issues surrounding that TRO.
The spillover effects of such a
battle among the giants, so to speak, can be considered either positive or
negative. That the Court's feet of clay are exposed may be considered a
negative by those who want to hide it, but it is certainly a positive to those
who want to know how to reform the institution and its processes. Judge for
yourself.
Five opinions were uploaded on
the website, all regarding the Arroyo-De Lima brouhaha. Justice Antonio Carpio
and Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno each have a dissenting opinion, Justice Arturo
Brion and Justice Presbitero Velasco each have a separate opinion, while
Justice Roberto Abad has a concurring opinion. But get this: the
decision/resolution itself-about which these justices dissented, concurred or
had a separate opinion-was nowhere on the website. If this is an oversight, it
certainly does not reflect well on the efficiency of the administration of the
Court.
If you have neither the time
nor the inclination to read the documents, let me give you some of what I
consider glimpses into the soft underbelly of the Court's procedures:
Item: Carpio's
dissent points out that the TRO was "actually issued and released to
petitioners before 6:00 o'clock in the evening of 15 November 2011, even before
petitioners' compliance with the first two conditions. Petitioners posted the
P2 million bond and submitted their respective special power of attorney at
6:00 o'clock in the evening of 15 November 2011."
On whose authority was the TRO
issued even before its conditions were complied with? Did the clerk of court,
Enriqueta Vidal, do it on her own? If she did, she should be dismissed for abuse
of authority. If she was "only" following somebody's orders, she
still has no excuse. She is sworn to follow only legal orders, isn't she?
On the other hand, if she
points to Chief Justice Renato Corona or to some other justice as the one who
gave her the go-ahead signal, then that person must also be brought to book by
the Court en banc, presumably also for abuse of authority. Could this be a
ground for impeachment?
Item: Sereno's
dissent notes that her earlier (Nov. 18) dissent included her first-person
narration of the Nov. 18 en banc deliberations, the issues that were put to a
vote, and the voting results-and that the accuracy of this narration was never
questioned by any of her colleagues in subsequent deliberations (Nov. 22, 24,
29).
That narration noted that the
en banc voted 7-6 that the second condition of the TRO had not been complied
with, but it also voted 7-6 that there was no need to explicitly state what the
legal effect of that non-compliance was. Carpio, in a letter quoted by Sereno,
actually mentioned that it was Abad in the Nov. 18 meeting who said that there
was no need for that since it is "common sense that the TRO cannot take
effect unless all conditions are satisfied."
No problem so far. What
happened, though, is that the Nov. 18 resolution made no mention of any
non-compliance. Instead, it merely gave instructions which would correct it
(with none the wiser).
And that is when the s-t hit
the fan-within the high court-as shown in the various opinions.
Carpio sought and obtained
agreement at the Nov. 22 en banc meeting that the Nov. 18 resolution be
clarified (i.e. to reflect non-compliance), with Velasco assigned to draft the
Nov. 22 clarificatory resolution.
To his horror (my
interpretation), the resulting clarification, which he found out was the Chief
Justice's version, "states the opposite of what was approved by the En
Banc in its meeting of 15 November 2011, and what was agreed in the En Banc
meeting of 22 November 2011." He asked that the resolution be withheld
until the next en banc meeting.
The Carpio letter was taken up
at the Nov. 29 en banc meeting, during which by a vote of 7-6 it was decided
that despite non-compliance with the condition, the TRO was nevertheless not
suspended!
Now, that has to be the mother
of all arbitrary, illogical decisions. If a TRO is conditional and the
condition is not obeyed, how can the TRO be in effect? Because the high court
says so. And that is what is contained in the final (but not in the website)
Nov. 22 resolution, although the vote was taken on Nov. 29.
Naturally, Sereno dissented, as
did Carpio. But here's the kicker: Sereno's dissent, which she submitted on
Dec. 2, was not promulgated until three days ago. Why? Because, as the clerk of
court affirms, Velasco ordered her not to promulgate until the en banc could
discuss it.
Since when does a dissent have
to be discussed en banc before promulgation?
What's more, Velasco, in his
separate opinion accuses Sereno not only of violating internal rules by
divulging what took place in en banc sessions (I understand that there are at
least six precedents for that) but also of playing fast and loose with the
rules because her dissent came late (one day) .
Sereno has put up a mirror to
the high court. And they hate her for what she makes them see.
Too bad.
Solita Collas-Monsod in
Manila/Philippine Daily Inquirer | ANN
Business & Investment Opportunities
YourVietnamExpert is a division of Saigon Business Corporation Pte Ltd, Incorporated in Singapore since 1994. As Your Business Companion, we propose a range of services in Consulting, Investment and Management, focusing three main economic sectors: International PR; Healthcare & Wellness;and Tourism & Hospitality. We also propose Higher Education, as a bridge between educational structures and industries, by supporting international programs. Sign up with twitter to get news updates with @SaigonBusinessC. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment