Supreme Court hears oral arguments on 2 Arroyo cases

The Supreme Court is holding on Tuesday oral arguments regarding two cases concerning former President and incumbent Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo who has been under "hospital arrest" since Nov. 18 at the St. Luke’s Medical Center in Taguig City. At 10 a.m., the high court will meet en banc, which means the full attendance of all the magistrates in the 15-justice tribunal. Later at 2 p.m., the SC is set to hear oral arguments on the consolidated petitions of Mrs. Arroyo's husband, Jose Miguel Arroyo, and former Elections chairman Benjamin Abalos Jr. questioning the legality of the creation of a joint Comelec-Department of Justice (DOJ) panel that had charged the former President with electoral sabotage at the Pasay Regional Trial Court on Nov. 18. That same day the charges were filed, the Pasay RTC Branch 112 issued a warrant for Mrs. Arroyo's arrest. The high court is also set to hear oral arguments on the watch list order that the administration of President Benigno Aquino III had issued against the former First Couple. The schedule of this particular oral argument was set in SC's Nov. 15 resolution granting a temporary restraining order (TRO) to lift the Watch List Order (WLO) in order to allow the Arroyos from leaving the country. But the Aquino administration, nonetheless, prevented the Arroyos from flying to Singapore that same day the TRO was issued. In a press release from the SC Public Information Office, it was stated that the petitioners Arroyos, through their counsels, and the respondents — including DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima — each have a maximum of 20 minutes to present their respective arguments. The same press release announced that the parties making the oral arguments have been directed to limit their discussions on the four basic issues, with the following sub-issues: 1. Is the right to travel under Section 6, Article III of the Constitution absolute in the absence of a law restricting it, or is the right subject to inherent limitations that apply even in the absence of a law; a. If there are inherent limitations, what are the justifications for these inherent limitations and when do they apply? 2. Whether or not the DOJ Circular No. 41 (Rules on the Issuance and Implementation of Hold Departure Orders, Watchlist Orders, and Allow Departure Orders) is constitutional; a. Does the DOJ Secretary have basis in issuing DOJ Department Circular No. 41; b. Does DOJ Department Circular No. 41 violate a person’s constitutional right to travel; and c. Does the instant case fall under the exceptions to the person’s right to travel. 3. Whether or not the WLOs were issued with grave abuse of discretion. a. Is the WLO actually a hold departure order; b. Are the courts the only ones that can issue a hold departure order; and c. Have the issues raised in the petitions regarding WLO No. 2011-573 dated Oct. 27 [issued against the Arroyo couple] become moot and academic; and 4. Whether or not the denial of the petitioners’ application for Allow Departure Order (ADO) was issued with grave abuse of discretion. — Marlon Anthony R. Tonson/RSJ, GMA News