Corona says ‘power won’t last forever’

SOLGEN FAILED TO SHOW FROM WHICH LAW DE LIMA’S WLO GETS ITS POWER

Power won’t last forever, Chief Justice Renato Corona seemed to caution government lawyers yesterday during the oral arguments into the suit filed by the Arroyo camp challenging the travel ban imposed on them by the Department of Justice (DoJ).

Near the end of the hours-long grilling of Solicitor-General Jose Anselmo Cadiz who argued for the government’s position, the Chief Justice asked, “Suppose in six to seven years, present officials are being hounded by political enemies, don’t you think the courts should protect their rights?”

Cadiz replied that the case “is not about vengeance. This is about accountability,” to which Corona retorted “it could be GMA (Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo), it could be Juan de la Cruz. The name, personality are not important, we have a court of law.”

President Aquino, together with all his allies, in the Palace and in Congress, has been working to discredit former president Gloria Arroyo’s appointees in the high court, especially the chief justice, to the point of President Aquino having the high court’s temporary restraining order issued against the Department of Justice’s watch list order defied while preventing the departure of the Arroyo couple at the airport, shortly after the TRO was issued.

Aquino also, in his speech delivered during the National Bureau of Investigation’s 75th anniversary hinted broadly that more rulings by the high court which will be judged by him as unfavorable to his government and biased in favor of a select few’s interest will be defied, saying that justice, reason, truth and the Filipino people are on his side.

A continuation of the oral arguments is scheduled on Thursday next week.

During the proceedings, Associate Justice Roberto Abad asked Justice Secretary Leila de Lima in open court to clarify a statement published in the press attributed to her where she apparently vowed that the former president would be behind bars by Christmas.

De Lima claimed the statement was made by Commission on Elections chairman Sixto Brillantes and claimed they “had been misquoted,” a usual excuse being made by public officials, despite the fact that they had indeed uttered such statements, following Aquino’s statement while he was abroad that the cases against the former president will push through by November this year.

Mrs. Arroyo was quickly charged with speed this month for electoral fraud punishable by life imprisonment and is a non-bailable offense, if the evidence is strong.

With equal speed, or a space of just two hours from the filing of the case, Arroyo was issued a warrant of arrest by a Pasay City Regional Trial Court judge.

Abad in a heated exchange with Cadiz said that while he agreed that there is a need for a mechanism for the government to prevent persons who are facing possible criminal prosecution from fleeing, the method resorted to by the DoJ in GMA’s case was defective.

“You are making the Secretary of Justice a judge. You have sway over the legislative. If tomorrow you pass a law, there is no problem.” Abad said as he pointed out that Arroyo, like all other accused “enjoys a presumption of innocence.”

For her part, Associate Justice Lourdes Sereno in pointing out that the DoJ has inherent powers to limit the right to travel of individuals drew a parallelism in the case of the former strongman Ferdinand Marcos’ case before the Supreme Court when the latter sought to return to the country from exile in Hawaii.

Former first gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo’s lawyer Ferdinand Topacio argued that “the bill of rights must take superiority over the unwritten residual powers of the president.”

“If it was wrong then it is wrong now. We have seen the effect of untrammeled executive power,” Topacio said.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio also grilled Cadiz who failed to provide a specific law authorizing DoJ Circular No. 41 , the DoJ’s basis for placing Arroyo in the Bureau of Immigration’s watch list.

Carpio explained that while the Constitution provides that only a judge may limit the liberty of abode there is “no such limitation” on the “right to travel.”

Carpio, an appointee of Arroyo but who is perceived to be leaning toward the Aquino administration and has dissented many times in the SC’s rulings unfavorable to President Aquino, noted that the reason for the difference is that the right to travel “involves quick action” and “maybe impaired by an executive officer.”

Carpio however chided Cadiz after the latter cited the Administrative Code as the legislative basis for the DoJ circular.

Asked to provide a specific provision of the Administrative Code, Cadiz failed to convince Carpio who said that the statement was “a motherhood statement in the Administrative Code and does not apply to the hold departure orders.”

“These are general statements but come with the broad powers of the Secretary of Justice.What you cited does not specify the power. That is not the law contemplated in the Constitution.” Carpio said.

Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes for his part dwelt on the residual powers of the chief executive.

Separate suits were filed before the Supreme Court by the embattled spouses Arroyo challenging the validity of the hold departure orders issued by the justice department (DoJ) preventing their travel abroad.

The Arroyos invoked their constitutional right to travel in their petitions. In her 41-page suit, the former chief executive asked the high tribunal, to declare as unconstitutional Department Circular No. 41 which gives the DOJ the power to issue

“Inclusion in a watchlist order means that the traveler must first seek the prior permission of the Secretary of Justice before one can exercise his constitutional right to travel or that his travel must be delayed involuntarily. The mere imposition of this requirement upon a hapless citizen, such as Petitioner, constitutes a degrading impairment of one’s constitutional right to travel. This prior requirement or forceful delay before Petitioner can travel outside the Philippines, is a clear impairment of his right to travel and which is expressly prohibited by Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution.

“Indeed, to be given the right to travel but with the requirement that he must first seek the permission of a stranger or to first await the passage of time in order to exercise it is like “a promise to the ear to be broken to the hope, a teasing illusion like a munificent bequest in a pauper’s will.” Mike Arroyo’s lawyer Topacio said in his pleading.

The Arroyos also questioned the DoJ’s position to use the criminal complaint by Sen. Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel against him as basis for his inclusion in the watchlist.

“In addition to the clear absence of factual basis, the allegations in Senator Pimentel’s complaint before the joint DoJ-Comelec committee is clearly hearsay. What then would be the factual basis for a Watchlist Order? Can a rumor be the basis of a Watchlist Order? Senator Pimentel III, in contrast to the DoJ Fact-Finding committee, did not conduct any fact-finding.” Arroyo added in his petition.

Meanwhile, a Pasay City court has ordered three doctors of the former president to testify on her health condition.

Those summoned to appear in Friday’s hearing were Dr. Juliet Cervantes, Arroyo’s attending physician; Dr. Mario Ver, orthopedic surgeon; and Dr. Roberto Mirasol, endocrinologist, all from the St. Luke’s Medical Center in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City.

According to Pasay Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 112 Clerk of Court Joel Pelicano, the court issued the subpoena after the Commission on Election (Comelec), which filed electoral sabotage charges against Arroyo last week, sought explanation on her current health condition to determine if her continued hospital arrest is necessary.

“There is urgency in this because both camps (prosecution and defense) want to hear from her attending doctors. In this case, the prosecution wants to know, as their motion said, her real medical condition, while the defense wants to continue her hospital arrest,” he added.

Aside from the Pasay RTC, the SC has also been asked to summon Arroyo’s doctors for the same reason.

The Senate also announced it would summon the doctors next week on its inquiry into the alleged cheating in the 2004 and 2007 elections.

Earlier, St. Luke’s vice president for communications Marilyn Lagniton said their doctors were ready to appear before the court to explain the status of Arroyo’s health.

The Pasay RTC is also expected to tackle the motion filed by the Comelec for the issuance of a hold departure order (HDO) against Arroyo.

Pelicano said the court may issue an order on the HDO on Friday, or Monday depending on the arguments presented by both camps.

Arroyo’s camp is questioning the jurisdiction of the lower court over the case, saying the proper forum should be the Sandiganbayan.

Malacañang, for its part, said the government would scrutinize and test, not just the expertise but also the honesty of the medical doctors who attested that Arroyo needed to go abroad for medical treatment in its bid to justify its refusal to abide by the TRO issued by the SC.

Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda, in a press briefing, welcomed the decision of Arroyo’s doctors to appear before the SC to testify on the condition of their patient, saying their testimony would put to test the veracity of their claim that the former president’s medical condition is life-threatening.

“We welcome that. We also would like to hear from them. Like we said, the doctors themselves will be in the position to determine the actual medical condition of the former president,” he added.

“They have to answer several questions: was there, from the very beginning, a life-threatening condition? If it was life-threatening, does it mean that the operation made by the St. Luke’s doctors was not successful that’s why it became a life-threatening condition? These things the doctors should be made to answer. And, also, what is the current medical condition of the former president? Is anorexia nervosa, as mentioned, the same basis for putting her in hospital arrest? So those are the questions that they may need to answer,” he pointed out.

The testimony of the doctors, Lacierda said, would also help the government determine if indeed there’s a need for Arroyo to stay under hospital arrest, as he maintained that as far as the government is concerned, the former president is not suffering from a life-threatening condition based on the medical abstract which was reviewed and analyzed by Health Secretary Enrico Ona.

He noted that in Arroyo’s medical certificate the doctors have said her condition was improving and, hence, “we don’t understand why the Supreme Court failed to realize that medical certificate — that particular content in that medical certificate.” –Benjamin B. Pulta with Pat C. Santod and Virgilio J Bugaoisan, Daily Tribune