Arroyos challenge watch list order before Supreme Court

(Updated 3:34 p.m.) Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband, former First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, on Tuesday challenged before the Supreme Court a new set of watch list orders (WLO) against them in connection with supposed electoral sabotage in the 2007 national elections. In separate petitions for certiorari and prohibition, Mr. and Mrs. Arroyo, through respective lawyers Ferdinand Topacio and Estelito Mendoza, questioned the legality of Watchlist Order No. 2011-573, issued by the Justice Department against them on Oct. 27. It was the second time in three months that Mr. Arroyo questioned a watchlist order against him — the first one in connection with the sale of supposed second-hand helicopters to the national police. In their latest petitions, the Arroyo couple asked the high court to stop government from implementing the watch list order through a temporary restraining order. Mrs. Arroyo was the subject of an earlier watch list order in connection with three plunder charges filed against her before the DOJ. Mrs. Arroyo, who is being treated for her pinched nerve and is suffering from hypoparathyroidism and bone mineral disorder, is seeking an Allow Departure Order from DOJ since she plans to consult medical specialists abroad. "The inability of petitioner GMA [Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo] to leave for abroad... has given rise to the danger that said conditions afflicting petitioner GMA may become permanent and incurable," read Mrs. Arroyo's 45-page petition. The Arroyo camp asked the Supreme Court to set aside, not only the Oct. 27 watchlist order, but also the watchlist orders issued against her in August and September. "[Mrs. Arroyo] is repeatedly being and continuously being subjected by the respondent DOJ Secretary to successive WLOs, thereby unduly restricting and impairing her constitutionally-guaranteed right to travel indefinitely," Arroyo's lawyer Mendoza said. For his part, Mr. Arroyo's camp said the order was issued "with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the acts complained of, until they are permanently enjoined." The Arroyos claimed the order violated Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution guaranteeing the liberty of travel. The former First Gentleman also said the order violated the "equal protection clause, petitioner's right to due process" and that it was issued "without authority."
'In aide of… prosecutorial authority The Arroyo camp asked the Supreme Court to set aside, not only the Oct. 27 watchlist order, but also all other previous watchlist orders issued against her in August and September. The lawyer said the order violated Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution guaranteeing the liberty of travel. He also said the order violates the "equal protection clause, petitioner's right to due process" and that it was issued "without authority." Mrs. Arroyo said the order violated Section 6 of the Bill of Rights, which states, "Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law." Arroyo is being probed "for giving direct instructions to manipulate the results of the senatorial elections in Maguindanao by ordering Governor Datu Andal Ampatuan Sr. to implement a 12-0 result in the Province of Maguindanao in favor of the Team Unity Senatorial candidates, and alter or change the results if necessary." Mendoza acknowledged a person's right to travel may indeed be "impaired" but only in the "interest of national security, public safety, or public health." Arroyo and more than 40 others are under preliminary investigation by a joint panel from the DOJ and the Commission on Elections — tasked to determine whether there is probable cause to elevate the electoral complaint to a court. "[But De Lima] issued the WLOs against petitioner GMA not in the interest of 'national security, public safety, or public health' but in aid of her prosecutorial authority," he said. The watchlist order against the former President would be valid for two months or 60 days from Oct. 27 "unless sooner terminated or otherwise extended." Legality of Circular 41 Mrs. Arroyo said the order violated Section 6 of the Bill of Rights, which states, "Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law." Meanwhile, Mr. Arroyo noted that placing him on the watch list would "work injustice and cause irreparable damage" again him as taxpayer and as private citizen. The former First Gentleman also challenged the legality of DOJ Circular No. 41, issued by former Justice Secretary Alberto Agra under his wife’s administration in May 2010, saying it has "no statutory basis" and constitutes "undue delegation of legislative power." Mr. Arroyo said he wanted the circular nullified "so that they may not be enforced at all by respondents or the latter may cease and desist from continuing to enforce them." Aside from De Lima, also named respondents in both petitions were Chief State Counsel Ricardo Paras III and Immigration Commissioner Ricardo David Jr. Mr. Arroyo said he chose not to ask De Lima to reconsider the latest watch list order against him because he knew it would be rendered "futile," given that her statements in the media and her "actuations indicate bias and prejudgement." He asked the Supreme Court to hold oral arguments regarding his petition "so that all issues, of constitutional importance, be properly ventilated and debated upon." Mr. Arroyo insisted that Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III's electoral complaint against him was not factual since the lawmaker used as basis a statement from suspended ARMM Gov. Rizaldy Ampatuan implicating the former First Gentleman. In turn, Ampatuan's statement was based on his communication with his father, clan patriarch Andal Ampatuan Sr. "[Pimentel's allegations] are based on hearsay, and, in fact, are double hearsay," he said. "What then would be the factual basis for a watchlist order?" he asked. 'The most compelling reason' In August, Mr. Arroyo was placed on the Immigration watch list after he was implicated in the supposed sale of second-hand choppers sold — as new — to the Philippine National Police. The former First Gentleman questioned the order before the Supreme Court, which initially issued a temporary restraining order but ultimately dismissed his petition. The petition was dismissed because it became "moot" after De Lima moved to dismiss his petition even as his name was stricken off the Immigration list in early September. Mr. Arroyo feared that De Lima might once again resort to the same actions, which could result in this latest petition being declared also "moot and academic." "There is strong possibility that the respondent De Lima will again prevent the Petitioner from seeking adequate relief and remedy from this Honorable Court... There is a compelling reason for this case to be ruled upon notwithstanding its mootness, should it occur," Mr. Arroyo said. "The most compelling reason of which is that the issue raised herein is 'capable of repetition, yet evading review'," he added. — VS, GMA News