Filtered By: Topstories
News

Corona argument on Arroyo watch list order centers on right to life


Unlike his fellow magistrates who focused on a person's right to travel, Chief Justice Renato Corona instead centered on the right to life during Tuesday's oral arguments for and against the watch list orders issued against the Arroyo couple. During the latter part of the arguments, Corona posed a question to Anacleto Diaz, counsel for former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, on what does he think is the right violated by the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Department Circular 41, which paved the way for the watch list order against the Arroyo couple. Diaz took the stand to insist the watch list order violated Mrs. Arroyo’s right to travel, which they described as "absolute" and was enshrined under Section 6 Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. In response to Corona's question, Diaz said: "I place a person's right to life paramount to all other rights." Corona uttered back: "Yes, right to life. That's a right guaranteed not only by the Philippine Constitution but also guaranteed by the United Nations Human Rights Commission." Added Corona, who was one of the 12 current magistrates appointed by Mrs. Arroyo while she was president: "[A person has a right] to live life as life should be lived." No basis Diaz claimed there was no basis for the DOJ to issue DC 41, which he said was "violative of a person's right to travel. "Public officials should not be allowed to strike when and where they please. They should not be allowed to use unchanneled governmental power," he said. Under the Constitution, a person's right to travel should not be impaired except in the interest of national security, public health, and public safety. Diaz said there is no law authorizing the DOJ to issue a watch list or a hold departure order to anyone being subjected to a preliminary investigation by the department. "With the absence of any law, there is no basis for DC No. 41. It is clear that DC is clearly violative of a person’s right to travel," he said. For his part, Justice Antonio Carpio likened the issuance of a watch list order to the issuance of a subpoena. "A prosecutor can issue a subpoena during preliminary investigation compelling respondents to appear," he said. "The prosecution can also inform the immigration service not to allow the departure of respondents until he or she complies with the subpoena," Carpio added. Satisfied Justice Diosdado Peralta openly said he was "satisfied" with Diaz's explanation. Contradicting Carpio, Peralta said: "A subpoena is not equal to a hold departure order." But unlike Corona and Peralta, Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno seemed unconvinced with Diaz's arguments. Corona and Peralta were among eight justices who earlier voted in favor of a temporary restraining order against the watch list orders. The TRO rendered the Arroyo couple free to travel abroad. Sereno and Carpio, on the other hand, were among the five justices who dissented. "Why are we going to make an exceptional case and not make a presumption that the Arroyo administration did not believe that?" Sereno asked Diaz. Mistake The associate justice noted that under the Arroyo administration, more than 6,000 people became subject of a watch list or a hold departure order by virtue of Department Circulars 17 and 18. In response, Diaz admitted it was a "mistake" when government officials under the Arroyo administration enforced the plethora of watch list and hold departure orders issued at the time. The watch list order issued against the Arroyo couple was based on DC 41, which superseded the previous DC 17 and 18. DC 41 was issued in May 2010, still during Mrs. Arroyo's tenure as chief executive. The subject of Tuesday's oral arguments was the couple's separate petitions questioning the legality of the watch list order and DC 14, saying they were violative of their right to travel. The Arroyo camp also said they should not be placed on the watch list since no criminal cases have been filed against them at the time. An electoral sabotage case, however, has since been filed against Mrs. Arroyo and two other government officials, former Maguindanao Gov. Andal Ampatuan Sr. and former Maguindanao provincial election supervisor Lintang Bedol. Mr. Arroyo, meanwhile, was spared from the charges and was taken off the watch list Tuesday, along with seven other individuals, including former Justice Secretary Alberto Agra, who was Mrs. Arroyo's election lawyer in previous elections. - KBK/KG, GMA News

LOADING CONTENT