SC: Rights of citizens must be protected

MANILA, Philippines - Solicitor General Joel Cadiz and other government lawyers were told to respect the constitutional rights of citizens when they faced Supreme Court (SC) justices during oral arguments on the petition of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo questioning the government’s ban on her leaving the country.

On Thursday, the justices said it is the duty of the Office of the Solicitor General to protect the rights of every citizen regardless of their stature in society or political affiliation.

Chief Justice Renato Corona lectured Cadiz on the history of the Bill of Rights, which guarantees the right of every citizen to travel.

“We are a court of law and that’s our job here under the Constitution – to protect the rights of the individual citizens,” he said.

Corona said the SC’s constitutional duty does not discriminate.

“It can be GMA (Arroyo’s initials), Juan de la Cruz or it can be Mang Pandoy... I don’t know if you are still familiar with Mang Pandoy,” he said.

Mang Pandoy, Felipe Natanio in real life, was used in the early 1990s by President Fidel Ramos as the “face of the poor” for his administration’s anti-poverty campaign.

Corona said the SC’s mandate to protect these rights should apply at all times to everyone.

“Imagine six or seven years from now, if a person is being hounded by their political enemies with the same vigor as you have, don’t you think it would be incumbent to this Court to give their constitutional right the same importance we are giving them today,” he said.

“In 40 years, when we have all been gone from the face of the Earth, when all the passion and emotions of today will have been gone... and all that’s left to see are the facts as they occur, what do you think they ought to see about this court... that society guided individual rights of people.”

However, Cadiz insisted on the government’s obligation to ensure successful investigation of cases against Arroyo in issuing the questioned watchlist order (WLO) through Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 41.

“The DOJ wants to ensure preliminary investigation is properly conducted, and this would not be possible if petitioners will be beyond jurisdiction of DOJ,” he said.

Cadiz said allowing Arroyo to leave the country could cause irreparable damage to government, which could be rendered powerless to compel her to answer to criminal charges against her.

Associate Justice Roberto Abad told Cadiz the absence of a respondent during preliminary investigation would not disable the DOJ from determining probable cause.

“Not even the court can compel an accused to testify,” he said.

However, Cadiz stood firm that Arroyo’s constitutional right to travel “is not absolute” as it was limited by Department Circular No. 41, which gives the DOJ the power to issue WLOs and hold departure orders (HDOs) to respondents in

criminal cases.

The assailed DOJ circular enjoyed the presumption of validity, he added.

Cadiz invoked police power of the executive department as provided under the Administrative Code.

However, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio asked him to name a law required under the Constitution before the right to travel may be impaired.

“What you cited was just on general power to administer functions,” he said. “That’s not the law required. Police power must be embodied by a law. Where is that law?”

Carpio told Cadiz: “That’s something novel. We’re not in the same plane,” when he insisted that the general provision of the Administrative Code encompasses Circular No. 41.

Department Circular 41 was issued during the Arroyo administration by then Justice secretary Alberto Agra.

Cadiz then proceeded to cite records showing the DOJ had issued WLOs and HDOs against over 6,000 respondents during the Arroyo administration.

Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro told Cadiz to stop appealing to emotion or extra-legal argument. “You should answer about what you learned about the Constitution,” she said. “We’re talking about fine points of the law here.”

Earlier, the SC heard the argument of former first gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, who also questioned the WLO in a separate petition.

His lawyer Ferdinand Topacio reiterated their argument that the order has violated his constitutional right to travel and freedom of movement.

He insisted that Circular 41 is not supported by any law and insisted that a watchlist order “is actually a hold departure order,” the issuance of which was strictly reserved for the courts.

Topacio said the SC should be wary of a “creeping

authoritarianism” evident with Circular 41.

“There is a creeping authoritarianism which this court should address if we want to remain a republican state,” he said.

The oral arguments would continue on Thursday next week when Justice Secretary Leila de Lima is set to face the justices to explain her action.

She was earlier ordered to explain why she should not be cited in contempt for defying the temporary restraining order on the WLO.

Dangerous

Two lawmakers warned yesterday  that calling for Corona’s inhibition from deliberations on Arroyo’s petitions is dangerous for the country’s democracy.

Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, an expert on constitutional law, cautioned against publicly subjecting the Chief Justice to “unfounded speculations.”

“I strongly believe and trust that he (Corona) will always decide justice,” he said.

“By asking him to inhibit, we might as well ask the justices appointed by the President to inhibit as well following the logic of those wanting him to inhibit and no one would be left behind on the bench.

“I think we should stop all these demands to inhibit. Let’s trust and allow the SC justices to do their jobs according to their conscience and the law.”

Rodriguez warned against meddling in the affairs of the judiciary in the same manner SC justices do not meddle in the affairs of the legislative and executive branches of government.

Rodriguez said intruding into the affairs of the SC is both “disrespectful” and “dangerous.”

“We must maintain the rule of law,” he said.

“If we mistreat the Supreme Court, whom do we now follow? That’s the end of democracy. The Supreme Court is the last bulwark of democracy. It is the final arbiter between the government and the people, and among branches of government.”

Zambales Rep. Milagros Magsaysay said those calling for Corona to inhibit himself were already politicizing the judiciary.

“This is dangerous already,” she said. “They have no more respect for our justices. Just because they disagree with the decisions, they want him out.

“They are citing his voting record, following their logic, what about those who consistently voted contrarily? They want to pressure the SC, this is like mob rule or is this the start of a dictatorship?” – With Paolo Romero