SC not an Arroyo court, says spokesman

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) denied Palace insinuations yesterday that it was favoring former president and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in issuing an order reinstating a former official removed by President Aquino through an executive order.

“Only time can really tell that this indeed is not an ‘Arroyo court.‘ And slowly, that has already been debunked by past rulings of this court that were adverse to the appointing authority and recent decisions that favored the new administration,” court administrator and SC spokesman Jose Midas Marquez told a press briefing.

The SC, through status quo ante, temporarily reinstated former National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF) Secretary Bai Omera Dianalan-Lucman, and stopped the House of Representatives from proceeding with the impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, widely perceived as an ally of Mrs. Arroyo.

“It’s not possible that in all cases where interests of the former administration are at stake, they (new administration) will automatically lose especially if they have all the valid grounds raised in pleadings they file before the Court,” he stressed.

Marquez said the Palace’s allegations of imprudence on the part of the SC in its recent ruling were “mere speculations.”

He also dispelled fears of a possible constitutional crisis as a result of the misunderstanding, saying what had transpired between the Palace and the SC was just an “exchange of explanations.”

“I seriously doubt that we will go any further beyond this point. The President has expressed his disappointment and said his piece, and we have already explained why the Court came out with the SQA (status quo ante) order,” he said. “I’m hoping that that would be the end of this exchange of explanations.”

Marquez vowed to exercise “judicial restraint” by not commenting further on the issue. He stressed that the latest SQ covered only Lucman.

“It would be very difficult to reinstate the many others who were removed from their posts. The Court is aware of this consequence to the executive,” he told The STAR.

“The fact that the SQA order covers only the Lucman petition shows that it is a class of its own and it cannot be invoked as a blanket remedy for all the so-called midnight appointees,” he said.

“Judicial review, which includes the power to issue TROs (temporary restraining orders) and SQA orders, is not a privilege, but a duty imposed by the Constitution on the court. It cannot shirk this duty,” he said.

“Rest assured that we have a Supreme Court which is not governed by passing emotions and daily polls, but by the rule of law; serving not the special interest of the few, but the best interest of law; committed not to self preservation, but to the preservation of those great constitutional principles bequeathed by history,” he said.

The High Court on Wednesday issued a status quo ante order reinstating Lucman to her post pending resolution of her petition questioning EO 2.

The SC ordered respondents led by Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. “to observe the status quo prevailing before the issuance of Executive Order No. 2 dated July 30, 2010,” the court order read.

Other officials contesting EO 2 were Director Eddie Tamondong of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Board Authority (SBMA), Justice Assistant Secretary Jose Arturo de Castro, administrator for Visayas of the Board of Administrators of the Cooperative Development Authority Irma Villanueva, National Commission on Indigenous People commissioner Francisca Rosquita and state solicitor Cheloy Garafil.

Like Lucman, Garafil also filed a very urgent motion for the issuance of an SQA.

Garafil argued that EO 2 “violates the Constitution by expanding the definition/interpretation of what constitutes midnight appointment.”

She said it was also tantamount to “removal from government service, in the absence of any justifiable cause and due process, is wantonly illegal and plainly uncouth.”

Garafil, who had also served as prosecutor in the Department of Justice, was appointed state solicitor in OSG last March 5 or six days before the period covered by the ban on appointments.

She took her oath last March 22, after receiving confirmation only on March 19.

But last Aug. 6, Solicitor General Anselmo Cadiz verbally ordered her termination in “violation of her rights to due process and security of tenure.”

Under EO 2, appointments made by former President Arroyo and other appointing authorities shall be considered midnight appointments including those made before March 11.