Former Justices Oscar Herrera and Hilarion Aquino, in a paper prepared for the Philippine Judicial Academy, have pointed out that up to now, there are some important problems regarding the courts’ competence to issue injunctions and temporary restraining orders against some tribunals or public agencies or against certain official acts or government undertakings.
In their introductory remark, they noted that judicial actions on application for these injunctive reliefs have been the cause of some nasty talks, oftentimes without factual basis, against some members of the bench. Thus, reacting to these pejorative remarks, the Supreme Court in a couple of times has reminded judges to be more judicious and circumspect in granting injunctive writs and warned them against their improvident issuance.
The paper also enumerates a number of statutory prohibitions against the issuance of writs of injunction. For instance, Republic Act 8975, in order to ensure the expeditious implementation and completion of infrastructure projects, as a general rule prohibited lower courts from issuing TROs, preliminary injunctions or preliminary mandatory injunctions.
PD 60 also prohibits the granting of injunction against the issuance of concessions, licenses, and other permits by public administrative officers or bodies for the exploitation or development of natural resources. RA 6770 meanwhile provides that no writ of injunction shall be issued against the Ombudsman to stop or delay his investigation unless the matter is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law likewise prohibits the issuance of any restraining order or writ of injunction against the PARC in any case, dispute or controversy arising from the implementation of the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, injunction is not available to restrain tax collection. Meanwhile, no court shall issue such reliefs against any freeze order by the Anti Money Laundering Council except the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
In short, the rules are supposed to be very stringent when it comes to the issuance of TROs or writs of injunction, mostly to ensure that the principle of separation of powers between the three branches of government is preserved. But perception abounds, whether rightly or wrongly, that this is not really the case. And in most instances, the prohibition applies only to lower courts.
There is now an ongoing debate, whether justly or unjustly, over the propriety of the issuance by the Supreme Court of a TRO against the recounts of ballots being undertaken by the House Electoral Tribunal (HRET) against Taguig Rep. Henry Duenas over the contested 2007 election in the second district of Taguig.
Media accounts revealed that after the alleged revision of ballots in the 100 percent of precincts identified by Duenas’ rival and 25 percent of the precincts included by Duenas himself in his counter-protest, the 1,457 votes lead of the congressman was reduced to 166. The 166 was further reduced to 32 votes upon the discovery by the HRET of fake spurious ballots.
At that point, the HRET ordered Duenas to post an additional cash bond to complete the recount of the votes in the precincts he identified in his counter-protest. Duenas balked at the idea of paying for a process that could result in his being unseated so the HRET ordered the use of its funds just to continue the recount. Duenas then went to the SC and was granted the TRO he prayed for.
The accusations being leveled against the SC justice are of course unfair and have no sound basis whatsoever at this point. But of course, these unfair accusations could have been avoided had he made known publicly that he has inhibited himself from acting on Duenas’ application for a TRO.
Some quarters are now proposing that courts be likewise prohibited from granting injunctive reliefs against acts of electoral tribunals so that the true will of the voting public can really be determined.
And so the debate over the propriety of TROs and injunctions continues.
For comments, e-mail at philstarhiddenagenda@yahoo.com