Filtered By: Topstories
News

Justice warns SC spokesman: Don’t interpret our orders


Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno (left) warns SC spokesman Midas Marquez to stick to his job and not interpret court rulings. SC/Congress
A Supreme Court justice on Friday warned spokesman and court administrator Midas Marquez against “interpreting" court rulings, following the latter’s announcement on Friday that the temporary restraining order (TRO) in favor of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was already “in full force and effect." In a dissenting opinion, SC Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno stressed that it was the “understanding of a majority that the TRO is suspended pending compliance" with an earlier resolution requiring Mrs. Arroyo and her husband First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo to comply with three conditions before they are allowed to leave the country. The following conditions are as follows: 1) the couple must post a P2 million cash bond with the SC; 2) the couple should appoint a legal representative who will receive all documents and court processes from the SC; 3) the couple should inform the government through a Philippine consulate of their arrival in the country of their destination. The Arroyo couple was able to fulfill the cash bond condition last Tuesday, but failed to comply with the second condition on legal representation. As a result, the court ordered the Arroyos' lawyer, Ferdinand Topacio, to submit a supplemental compliance indicating his authority to serve as the Arroyo couple’s legal representative who will receive court notices and processes for them. Sereno described the Arroyo couple’s non-compliance on legal representation as a “jurisdictional defect that suspends at least the effectivity of the TRO." But in an interview with reporters Friday afternoon, Marquez insisted that despite the missing supplemental compliance, it did not mean the Arroyos failed altogether to comply with the conditions. "The TRO stays in full force and effect," the spokesman announced. This prompted Sereno to “advice" Marquez in her dissenting opinion not to perform functions beyond his mandate. “The Court Administrator cum Acting Chief of the PIO [Public Information Office] is hereby advised to be careful not to go beyond his role in such offices, and that he has no authority to interpret any of our judicial issuance, including the present Resolution, a function he never had from the beginning," Sereno said. Sereno also reminded the Clerk of Court to ensure that there is “faithful compliance" with the three-pronged condition set by the court before issuing a certification that compliance with the TRO was fulfilled. The magistrate said she understood that the Clerk of Court only committed a “human mistake" when it certified the compliance, given that the TRO was “rushed." Sereno still maintained that the government should first have been allowed to air its side on the Arroyo petition before a TRO is issued. “It is completely wrong for this court to bend over backwards to accommodate the request of petitioner for a TRO to be issued ex-parte without hearing the side of the government," she said. Sereno insisted that the TRO should have been instead issued after oral arguments Tuesday next week, or in four days' time. “Should the Court contribute to such possible despair by not waiting for the oral argument on 22 November 2011 before issuing a TRO?" the justice asked. “What is waiting four more days from today when oral arguments are conducted compared with the possibility that there is genuine and not just publicly imagined intention on the part of the petitioners to evade processes?" she added. 6 rounds of voting During Friday’s en banc session, the 13 magistrates voted six different times on various issues surrounding the WLOs. In the first round, the justices voted 8-5 denying the motion for consideration filed by the Department of Justice through the Office of the Solicitor General, asking the court to recall the TRO. In the second voting, the court en banc voted 7-6 in agreeing that the Arroyo couple failed to comply with the second condition set by the court for the TRO. During the third round, the court voted 7-6 in saying there was “no need to explicitly state the legal effect on the TRO of the non-compliance by petitioners with condition number 2 of the earlier resolution." The fourth and fifth voting resulted in an agreement to require public respondents in the case and Justice Secretary Leila de Lima to explain why they should not be cited in contempt for defying the TRO. The final voting was regarding suggestions to reset the schedule of the oral arguments that were “ultimately denied." —MRT/VS, GMA News
LOADING CONTENT