MANILA, Philippines - Supreme Court (SC) spokesman and Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez asked the public yesterday to “please don’t shoot the messenger” in explaining his statement on the temporary restraining order (TRO) on the government’s ban on former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s departure for abroad.
Marquez said the SC is a collegial body of 15 justices and it is not very often that it decides cases unanimously.
“Justice (Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno has so eloquently made her point,” he said.
“We should all respect that. However, hers did not get the majority vote. We should not lose sight of the fact that a Dissenting Opinion is just that - a dissent.”
Marquez said the public must not be led to believe that the dissenting view is the controlling view.
While it may be repeatedly publicized and broadcasted by those who agree with it, it remains a minority view, he added.
The majority view always prevails and must be followed, he said.
Marquez said at the end of every issue it deliberates on, the SC takes a vote. And like any democratic process, the majority view prevails, he added.
Marquez said issuing a TRO in the twin cases concerning the Arroyo couple, the SC, on a vote of 7-6, held that while petitioners’ initial compliance might not have been substantial, the effectivity of the TRO need not be suspended pending their subsequent supplemental compliance.
“This is the majority view, and as spokesperson of the High Court, this is what I announced,” he said.
“Just a word more on the existing rules of the Court. The Clerk of Court does not issue the TRO after the conditions set forth in a conditional TRO are met.”
Marquez said once the conditions in a conditional TRO issued through the Clerk of Court are fulfilled, “the TRO ipso facto takes effect.”
Marquez said there can hardly be any “human mistake which is understandable on the part of the Clerk of Court, as mentioned in the Dissenting Opinion.”
“I have been with the Court for more than two decades, and have been announcing its decisions for the last five years, dating back from the watch of Chief Justice Puno,” he said.
“While I have always been very careful in my announcements and press briefings, knowing fully well, as the Dissent chides, that I have ‘no authority to interpret any of (the) judicial issuances, including the present Resolution, a function (I) never had from the beginning,’ the reminder is much appreciated.
“But please understand that as spokesperson, I too have a very important obligation to the media and the public, that they clearly understand the decision of the Court. The decision may not always be popular, but that is the decision of the Court, taking into consideration the rule of law. So please don’t shoot the messenger.”
Marquez said the SC affirmed on Nov. 18 its TRO on the travel ban on Arroyo, but said a warrant of arrest from the Pasay City Regional Trial Court now prevents her from leaving the country.
Marquez said the SC rejected the executive branch’s appeal to reconsider the issuance of the TRO, which “remained in full force and effect.”
The issuance of the arrest warrant effectively settled the issue on whether Arroyo could be allowed to leave the country.
However, Sereno chided Marquez for incorrectly interpreting the SC’s resolution.
In her nine-page dissent, Sereno contended that the TRO issued on Nov. 15 remained ineffective because the Arroyo couple had failed to comply with Condition No. 2 that “the petitioners shall appoint a legal representative common to both of them who will receive subpoena, orders, and other legal processes on their behalf during their absence.”
Meanwhile, House of Representatives Deputy Speaker Erin Tañada asked the SC yesterday to punish Marquez for “repeatedly declaring the Arroyos could leave town when they should not.” – Sandy Araneta, Jess Diaz