Filtered By: Topstories
News

Aquino appointees dissent on SC ruling allowing Arroyo travel


Two associate justices in the 15-man Supreme Court filed their dissents on the high court’s Tuesday ruling ordering to stop temporarily the implementation of the watch list orders against former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel “Mike" Arroyo. As of posting time, SC Associate Justice Antonio Carpio’s dissenting opinion is available on the high court’s website, while the dissent of SC Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes has yet to be made available. Also dissenting but have not reserved submitting separate opinions were SC Associate Justices Jose Mendoza, Lourdes Sereno, and Estela Bernabe. Other than Carpio, Mendoza is the only Arroyo appointee to dissent. “The five who dissented said the case should first be heard before they would decide whether to issue a TRO or not," SC spokesman Court Administrator Midas Marquez said on Tuesday. “But then again the majority thought the issuance of a TRO is consistent with the constitutional presumption of innocence." Two magistrates — Mariano del Castillo and Teresita de Castro — were on leave. But despite the high court’s TRO, the Aquino administration still prevented the Arroyos from leaving the country. Carpio cites ‘exceptions’ to right to travel In his dissent, Carpio said that the SC could have just deliberated on the temporary restraining order (TRO) Arroyo had asked for “after the Government files its Comment and after oral arguments are heard on the matter," adding that “[t]his should take not more than five working days, which is brief enough so as not to prejudice petitioners in any way." The SC resolution granting the TRO had set for oral arguments on Nov. 22. Carpio pointed out that, “While the right to travel is a constitutional right that may be impaired only ‘in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law,’ there are recognized exceptions other than those created by law. Foremost is the restriction on the right to travel of persons charged of crimes before the courts." “Another is the restriction on persons subpoenaed or ordered arrested by the Senate or House of Representatives pursuant to their power of legislative inquiry," he added in reference to other branches of government. “There are also restrictions on the right to travel imposed on government officials and employees. For example, Office of the Court Administrator Circular No. 49-2003(B) requires judges and court personnel ‘to secure a travel authority from the Office of the Court Administrator’ before they can travel abroad even during their approved leave of absence or free time. This restriction to travel abroad is imposed even in the absence of a law," Carpio explained. Carpio pointed out that the cases against Arroyo couple “are already undergoing preliminary investigation in several criminal cases, and charges may be filed before the courts while petitioners are abroad." He said that “[i]n fairness to the Government which is tasked with the prosecution of crimes, this [Supreme] Court must hear first the Government in oral argument before deciding on the temporary restraining order which if issued could frustrate the Government’s right to prosecute." — ELR, GMA News

LOADING CONTENT