Posted: 22nd December 2011 by Article VIII Jester in Impeachment, Renato Corona, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court (SC) website published on December 21, 2011 the dissenting opinions of Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio and Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno to the SC Resolution dated November 29, 2011, which, by a vote of 7-6, upheld the effectivity of the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued in favor of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo despite non-compliance with the conditions set by the SC itself in its Resolution dated November 15, 2011 before a TRO may issue.
The dissents can be found here:
The dissents reveal explosive facts about the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo and establish Chief Justice Renato Corona’s bias and partiality towards Arroyo.
First, the premature and irregular issuance of the TRO in favor of GMA.
The premature and irregular issuance of the TRO in favor of Arroyo is revealed by Carpio’s dissent. In the dissent, he highlights that the “TRO was actually issued and released to petitioners before 6:00 o’clock in the evening of 15 November 2011, even before petitioners’ compliance with the first two conditions [of the TRO].” In fact, “[p]etitioners posted the P2 million bond and submitted their respective special power of attorney at 6:00 o’clock in the evening of 15 November 2011.”
It should be remembered that the SC itself conditioned the grant of the TRO based on the following conditions set in its Resolution dated November 15, 2011: (1) the posting of a cash bond of P2,000,000.00; (2) the appointment of a legal representative who will receive subpoena, orders and other legal processes on their behalf; and (3) that Arroyo apprise the Philippine embassy or consulate in the place where she will be traveling regarding her whereabouts at all times.
However, despite the clear conditions for the issuance of the TRO set by the SC itself, the TRO was hastily and prematurely issued prior to compliance thereof by Arroyo. Despite the fact that Arroyo posted the bond and submitted the special power of attorney (SPA) only at 6 p.m. of November 15, 2011, the TRO was already issued earlier. In fact, Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez in an interview confirmed that the TRO was issued past 5 p.m.
The interview can be found here:
This clearly exposes the irregularity of the issuance of such TRO. What is more, given the irregularities of its issuance, it is clear that it was only Corona, as head of the SC, who could have authorized the irregular issuance in order to enable Arroyo to flee and escape prosecution.
Second, Corona suppressed Sereno’s constitutional right to dissent.
In her dissenting opinion, Sereno likewise recounted how she was systematically prevented from publishing her dissent to the Resolution dated November 29, 2011 in violation of her clear constitutional mandate under Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution that “[a]ny Member [of the Supreme Court] who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution, must state the reason therefor.”
Sereno states she submitted her dissent on December 2, 2011. However, the Clerk of Court refused to promulgate her dissent. Instead, SC En Banc Clerk of Court Enriqueta E. Vidal admitted that “she could not tell [Justice Sereno’s] staff the real reason for the non-promulgation of [Justice Sereno’s] opinion – that actually, Justice Velasco gave her the instruction, as confirmed by the Chief Justice, that [Justice Sereno’s] opinion should not be promulgated, but rather, that it should be taken up in the agenda of the 6 December 2011 En Banc session.”
Certainly, Corona’s action is a culpable violation of the Constitution.
Third, Corona changed the import of the ruling of the majority to favor Arroyo.
A reading of Sereno’s dissent readily shows why Corona was adamant in suppressing it at all costs. Such efforts were made in order to cover up how he falsified the results of the SC’s November 18, 2011 deliberations by correcting the draft resolution which changed the decisions made by the SC.
On November 18, 2011, the SC voted on two issues: whether Arroyo complied with the conditions for the issuance of the TRO and whether the TRO was still effective. The Court voted 7-6 that there was non-compliance by Arroyo with the conditions set by the TRO for it to be effective. At the second instance, however, the SC voted 7-6 to keep silent on the legal effect of non-compliance since the ineffectiveness of the Resolution was considered “common sense” as a result of non-compliance with the conditions set therein.
Despite the clear vote of the SC en banc, Corona made his own handwritten corrections to the resolution prepared by Associate Justice Presbiterio Velasco on the decisions made in the November 18, 2011 deliberations where he falsely made it appear that Arroyo has “substantially complied with the conditions for the issuance of the TRO, and that TRO is in full force and effect.” Despite the fact that Corona’s handwritten corrections were contrary to what was approved by the SC on November 18, 2011, he also ordered the Clerk of Court to immediately promulgate his falsified version. Hence, he attempted to subvert the will of the SC which he himself heads as Chief Justice.
Fourth, Corona intentionally misled the public by instructing Marquez to publicly announce that the SC, by a vote of 9-4, ruled that the TRO was effective on November 19, 2011.
Sereno’s dissent reveals that “[w]hile the Resolution has not yet even been written,” Marquez falsely tells the public that “the TRO is in full force and effect and, as far as the SC is concerned, Arroyo can travel out of the country immediately.” In fact, Marquez even falsely declared that the SC affirmed the TRO as being “in full force and effect” with a vote of 9-4.
The report can be found here:
This was clearly false because the voting to declare that there was non-compliance with the TRO was 7-6. Clearly, the report on the 9-4 vote was a brazen lie intended to enable Arroyo to still flee the Philippines.
However, the source of his false representation was revealed when Marquez publicly admitted that it was Corona who told him about the 9-4 voting and that the TRO was in full force and effect. Hence, the misleading of the public was done at Corona’s instance.
Given the foregoing, at its most basic terms, Corona’s actions – sanctioning the premature and irregular issuance of a TRO even before the conditions are complied with, suppressing the voice of his fellow justice, but even to falsify the import of the ruling of the SC as a whole and to mislead the public – shows a blind allegiance to Arroyo.
Certainly, this is a far cry from Corona’s mandate, as the primary protector of the judiciary as primus inter pares. Certainly, his revealing actions belie any honest intention to protect the interests of the people and not just of the woman who appointed him in the dying days of her regime and in violation of the constitutional ban on judicial appointments. Certainly, enough has been done to damage the institution so trusted by the people to act as the last bulwark of their constitutional rights and liberties! Certainly, enough should be enough!
No comments:
Post a Comment