De Lima order to hold Arroyo is it unconstitutional ?

[Stoner]

Whether or not their is a grain of truthfulness in their supposed claims,

For some reason, I have the mental image of Ms. Horn as a prattling housewife neighbor who sprouts out all sort of BS about anything and everything under the sun to sow 'tsismis'.

[shadow]

Nakakatawa itong si bautista-horn lahat ng reklamo nila gawain din nila dati...sanaa nagpasundo kasi sila doon sa sumundo kay jun lozada sa airport dati, baka naipuslit pa sila or yun naglabas Kay garci

[Altis6453]

This is a good take:



More drama than is good for us
DEMAND AND SUPPLY By Boo Chanco (The Philippine Star) Updated November 18, 2011 12:00 AM Comments (2)

I was thinking, while watching the high drama of last Tuesday evening that all that hoopla can’t be good for us. If we can only channel all the energy and passion of that evening’s real life soap opera into something more productive, we will probably become a first world country in no time. Unfortunately, we are having our fun and games at the expense of the nation’s development.

I have two thoughts on what happened. It would probably have been easier for the P-Noy administration to just let her go as the Supreme Court ruled she could. But that would have made the government look helpless in its drive to make officials accountable for their actions while in public office. The judicial bullying of the Arroyos, with the unfortunate connivance of the Supreme Court would have rewarded such unwanted and unwarranted behavior.

As a non-lawyer, it was confusing to listen even to the words of the Court Administrator. Earlier in the afternoon, he said that the*DOJ and the Solicitor General’s office would be served a copy of the TRO for compliance. I guess the legalists among us would call media reports mere hearsay and only the actual signed order from the High Court is officially actionable.

Later in the evening, he said they failed to serve a copy at the DOJ because they came after five in the afternoon and so he said media reports would serve as sufficient notice to government of the SC’s TRO. The news about the TRO came out as early as two in the afternoon. DOJ is just a few steps away from the Supreme Court. If the Court Administrator really wanted DOJ to get a copy, they could have done it within the three hours between the news break and close of office hours. DFA used to be in the building now housing the SC and I had no problem going back and forth from DFA to DOJ several times a day as a reporter when I covered both beats.

I think the failure to serve the TRO was premeditated. Even if every media outlet reported the same story, DOJ needed the TRO order in black and white. The position DOJ took that evening would have been more difficult to make if there was proper service of the order. I think delaying service of the order and causing the problems that happened was part of a script. The Arroyos must have badly wanted to deliver a strong message to the Aquino administration on who really is still the boss.

It was also unfortunate that media coverage that evening was confused. They had a lot of air time but they were saying the same things over and over and not enough information on the issues at hand. The Arroyos won the propaganda war that evening. They had more air time and the visual of a neck-braced Gloria Arroyo being lifted into a wheelchair from an ambulance was meant to win sympathy as she is portrayed as a suffering underdog. From my many years in media and media relations, it looked scripted… planned by a good director worthy of a FAMAS award.

Media should have provided more context on the issues at hand which could have been provided by the dissenting opinion of Justice Antonio Carpio. But I only heard of the Carpio opinion after the drama was over. The dissenting opinion suggests that the Arroyo loyalists in the Court were rather unreasonable to fast track the issuance of the TRO.

In his dissent, Justice Carpio wrote that he is voting “to defer action on petitioners’ prayer for a temporary restraining order until after the Government files its Comment and after oral arguments are heard on the matter. This should take not more than five working days, which is brief enough so as not to prejudice petitioners in any way.”



Justice Carpio pointed out that “in fairness to the Government which is tasked with the prosecution of crimes, this 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. The Government must be heard on how the charges against petitioners could proceed while petitioners are abroad.”

I am sure many fair minded people will agree the concerns raised by Justice Carpio are very reasonable. This is more so because medical experts have already said that there is no urgency in the former President’s condition that makes a trip to a foreign expert a matter of life and death. That being the case, her constitutional right to travel is not being curtailed as much as precautions are just being put in place to make sure she will be around to answer charges once these are filed.

Curiously, SC Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in her dissent, noted the issue focuses on a Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular (No. 41) issued by the Arroyo administration. “The Arroyo Government must be presumed to have believed in and implicitly represented that it is valid and constitutional. An explanation from her must be heard on oral argument on why this no longer seems to be the case.”

In fact, DOJ points out the Supreme Court has already recognized its power to issue a watch list order two years ago, when the Court upheld a similar order given by then DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzalez in 2007.* Then Justice Secretary Gonzalez placed Fr. Robert Reyes and 49 others under the immigration watch list while they are under investigation for rebellion.

I reject the suggestion that P-Noy was just being mean to his predecessor. Given the many instances wherein prominent personalities have been able to effectively escape accountability by fleeing abroad, the Justice Secretary has an obligation to make sure this big one will not be the next such case. Otherwise, she would also be guilty of negligence.

*It would have been easier for P-Noy to just let her go and should she and her husband eventually seek asylum abroad, it would be easy to lay the blame on the Supreme Court and delight in an Arroyo lawyer’s promise to castrate himself. In fact, I was thinking that this was the best option for government to take, if the only consideration was public image. After all, even with the current Supreme Court’s less than savory image, citizens still want to see everyone following its orders for the sake of having the image of rule of law prevailing in our country. Two branches of government in bitter conflict cannot be reassuring.

It is not an easy dilemma the administration faced. The constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas voiced the opinion that she has the constitutional right to travel. Yet, the Jesuit also told GMA News, “if Gloria leaves, nothing can compel her to come back. If she doesn’t come back she will never be tried in court.”

It was a calculated risk on the part of the P-Noy administration to take the hard position they did. But if they lost some brownie points for doing that, those are brownie points well spent. It showed the administration had the guts to make difficult decisions, even one that may make it unpopular.

What they did was to effectively serve notice that this kind of judicial bullying will not work. The Arroyos cannot hide behind the protective cloak of her SC appointees now or in the future, pitting one branch of government against another. The administration served notice that two can play a game of cat and mouse.

The unfortunate thing is that the drama that unfolded live on television didn’t show us or our government in the most positive light, at a time when some world focus was on us due to US State Secretary Hillary Clinton’s visit. Maybe media can also do some soul searching and think of ways of intelligently covering similar future events with more thought and less melodrama. Media must realize they are there to help form informed public opinion and not to merely satisfy our national craving to be usiseros.

Hopefully, everyone will sober up in the next few weeks, months or years and we can all concentrate on the urgent task of economic development once and for all.

[CoDer]

^ Good read.

Sums it all up.

[CVT]

Political will....

14.4K:out:

[shadow]

Ayan na comelec voted 5-2 to file electoral sabotage against arroyo....oh wala na kwenta tdchnically TRO dahil meron ng kaso...

Weather weather lang...

[shadow]

Non bailable offense ang electoral sabotage...so moot and academic na ba yun oral arguments sa SC? Saka yun TRO?

And the saga continues.....

[Altis6453]

Non bailable offense ang electoral sabotage...so moot and academic na ba yun oral arguments sa SC? Saka yun TRO?

And the saga continues.....

No and no.

The case still has to be filed with the proper court (after a raffle) and a corresponding warrant of arrest issued against the accused. Resolution pa lang yan ng investigating body (COMELEC).

[jansky]

^^ after may resolution dadaan pa ata sa ombudsman before sandiganbayan ? correct me if im wrong

[shadow]

^^ after may resolution dadaan pa ata sa ombudsman before sandiganbayan ? correct me if im wrong

Railroad na yan!!!!

Ito na nabasa ko sa inquirer, bakit daw ni-consolidate ng SC yun petition ni GMA and FG regarding WLO, eh kung right to life and nilalaban nila arrovo bakit kasama si FG eh si GMA lang nag meron "life threatening disease"....Buy one take one ang right to life? Alam na!!!!

[jansky]

ang maganda nito mafile kaya ngayon sa tamang korte?

[wowiesy]

No and no.

The case still has to be filed with the proper court (after a raffle) and a corresponding warrant of arrest issued against the accused. Resolution pa lang yan ng investigating body (COMELEC).

assuming kasama sa petition ang HDO (Hold Departure Order).. when should the HDO be acted on by the court? after arraignment? before arraignment? immediately?

sa Raffle, it can be somehow be allegedly manipulated na mapunta sa isang judge na "mas gusto" ng nag file... question is, legally.. and by protocol (Rules of Court<?>), ano ang proseso sa paglabas ng HDO? hearing pa rin ba??

sa kabilang banda, nag file din sila GMA / FG ng petition sa SC to prevail upon lower courts against the filing of any charges related to election sabotage against them... granted na there's a chance na delaying game lang yun... what happens... kung nag rule agad lower court kahit may pending issue na sa SC... will that be again a stalemate between the lower court and the SC?

[jansky]

Arroyo spokesman: Court cannot issue instant hold order - Nation - GMA News Online - Latest Philippine News

eh hindi pa nga rin na serve ang TRO nasa airport agad si GMA eh
lahat ng ginagawa ng bawat party nag baback fire hahahahahah

[Altis6453]

assuming kasama sa petition ang HDO (Hold Departure Order).. when should the HDO be acted on by the court? after arraignment? before arraignment? immediately?

sa Raffle, it can be somehow be allegedly manipulated na mapunta sa isang judge na "mas gusto" ng nag file... question is, legally.. and by protocol (Rules of Court<?>), ano ang proseso sa paglabas ng HDO? hearing pa rin ba??

sa kabilang banda, nag file din sila GMA / FG ng petition sa SC to prevail upon lower courts against the filing of any charges related to election sabotage against them... granted na there's a chance na delaying game lang yun... what happens... kung nag rule agad lower court kahit may pending issue na sa SC... will that be again a stalemate between the lower court and the SC?

1. The RTC can't issue an HDO motu propio. The prosecution must file a motion for one to be issued. Ordinarily, you don't wait for the arraignment before asking for an HDO since this would mean that the accused can opt to leave the country before he is brought to court to enter a plea.

2. The raffle is conducted in the office of the Executive Judge of the RTC where the case is pending, and the parties (meaning the prosecution and the accused) may be present when the raffle is done so it will be difficult to "choose" the judge who will hear the case.

3. On GMA and FG's petitions with the SC to prevent filing of a criminal case, I think it'll be dismissed as it is premature. The filing of a criminal case does not equate to their guilt or conviction.

[jansky]

1. The RTC can't issue an HDO motu propio. The prosecution must file a motion for one to be issued. Ordinarily, you don't wait for the arraignment before asking for an HDO since this would mean that the accused can opt to leave the country before he is brought to court to enter a plea.

2. The raffle is conducted in the office of the Executive Judge of the RTC where the case is pending, and the parties (meaning the prosecution and the accused) may be present when the raffle is done so it will be difficult to "choose" the judge who will hear the case.

3. On GMA and FG's petitions with the SC to prevent filing of a criminal case, I think it'll be dismissed as it is premature. The filing of a criminal case does not equate to their guilt or conviction.

so the only way is issue Warrant of Arrest ? to prevent them from leaving

[CVT]

Try, try and try....

Iyong isa,- nakalusot na....

14.4K:out:

[explorer]

from: www.gmanews.tv

Justice Sereno’s dissenting opinion

11/20/2011 | 07:45 PM

A day after the high court issued the TRO lifting the travel ban on the former First Couple, Supreme Court Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno filed her dissenting opinion to the ruling because former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo allegedly made “inconsistent, and probably untruthful statements," about her plans to go abroad for medical treatment.

President Benigno Aquino III’s first SC appointee questioned the majority’s issuance of the TRO by citing four issues.

Sereno first called attention to the “very stringent rules in issuing a TRO," particularly on getting the application “verified." She pointed out in her dissent that the high court has strict regulations concerning its employees’ right to travel. She then asked, “Why is the majority not even willing to hear the government before issuing the TRO, when, in the supervision of its judiciary employees, a mere administrative officer of the Supreme Court, and not a judicial officer, may deny the right to travel?"

Second, Sereno said Mrs. Arroyo had presented to the SC “inconsistent, and probably untruthful statements." Her dissenting opinion cited documents submitted by Arroyo's doctors belying her claims of threat to life. She also noted that the list of countries the former President had wanted to visit kept on changing, adding that Arroyo had even planned participating in two conferences abroad.

“It seems incongruous for petitioner who has asked the Department of Justice and this Court to look with humanitarian concern on her precarious state of health, to commit herself to attend these meetings and conferences at the risk of worsening her physical condition," Sereno said.

Third, the dissenting Justice said “an explanation from [Arroyo] must be heard on oral argument" as to why the Representative of the Second District of Pampanga was questioning the constitutionality of an administrative order that she herself had issued when she was President.

Lastly, Sereno in her dissent stressed that the high court should hear the side of government before allowing the Arroyos to leave the country – just in case the former First Couple did not return, because the Philippines “has not had much success in waging international campaigns to recover the Marcos ill-gotten wealth or effect the arrest of many criminal escapees."

Sereno said while Mrs. Arroyo’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, “[t]his does not mean, however, that the State should be deprived of the opportunity to be heard on the question of whether it has certain rights that must be protected vis-a-vis persons under investigation during a preliminary investigation."

[shadow]

Electoral sabotage vs ex-Pres. Arroyo, Andal Ampatuan Sr, Lintang Bedol now being filed at Pasay RTC....

Ayan na!!!!

[Ry_Tower]

^^ Like I said, ang unang kumurap, Talo!

Electoral sabotage vs ex-Pres. Arroyo, Andal Ampatuan Sr, Lintang Bedol now being filed at Pasay RTC....

Ayan na!!!!

Yahoo! :naughty2:

[shadow]

Hahahah, advance naman tweet nitong DWIZ Sinasabing naglabas na ng old departure order laban sa mga Arroyo ang Pasay RTC sa mga oras na ito.