Purisima apologizes to SC

Resigned finance secretary Cesar Purisima apologized yesterday to the Supreme Court, which has threatened to cite him in contempt for claiming that the tribunal was pressured by President Arroyo into issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) that suspended the implementation of the expanded value-added tax (EVAT) law.

In his four-page reply, however, Purisima denied insinuating that the Supreme Court had acted at the President’s behest.

"It is not true that I claimed or even insinuated that this honorable Court was pressured or influenced by President Arroyo or Malacañang Palace to issue a TRO in the instant cases. What I stated was simply that President Arroyo had on several occasions discussed with the economic team the possibility of postponing the implementation of RA 9337," Purisima said in his reply. "If my actions have been misconstrued by the print and broadcast media, I apologize with all sincerity and humility."

Opposition lawmakers had asked the court to stop the implementation of the EVAT, which took effect July 1. They argued that it was unconstitutional because it granted Mrs. Arroyo authority to raise the tax from 10 to 12 percent under certain circumstances. They said Congress has the sole power of taxation.

Purisima said that while he believed that Mrs. Arroyo wanted to postpone the implementation of the EVAT, he never claimed or insinuated that the High Court was influenced or pressured to issue the TRO.

He cited the July 11, 2005 issue of The STAR, saying it "fairly and accurately reported the actual tenor of the statements I made to the public" when it reported that Mrs. Arroyo had told Purisima of her desire to delay the EVAT.

He did not, however, directly accuse Mrs. Arroyo of trying to influence the Supreme Court in handing down the TRO.

"I don’t deny that I was extremely disappointed when this honorable court issued the TRO, which was a serious setback to our fiscal consolidation program. And my disappointment grew when I felt that the government, specifically the Executive branch, was not doing enough to have the TRO lifted. At the height of my disappointment, and after hearing of rumors that Executive officials may have been instrumental in producing the TRO, I did inquire from the other cabinet officials whether Malacañang had a hand in the issuance of the order."

Purisima said he felt that it was his right and duty as finance secretary then to make such an inquiry, given that before the issuance of the TRO, Mrs. Arroyo had inquired about the possibility of deferring the implementation of the EVAT.

"But surely, my inquiries whether Malacañang did so, did not amount to, as it was not intended to have the effect of, claiming outright or necessarily insinuating that Malacañang did so, or to hold, in any manner, this honorable court in contempt."

Purisima said that he has always held the Supreme Court in high esteem and he would not do anything that would damage its integrity.

"In these dire times, when the legitimacy and integrity of other institutions of government have been grievously wounded by incessant attacks, the Supreme Court has remained unscathed, and because it is an institution which continues to deserve the public’s trust, the people look to it as the final arbiter of the intense conflicts that now divide society. Because of this, I would be the last to do anything that would weaken the Supreme Court."

Purisima added that he also believes in due process and the strength of the government’s case in implementing the expanded tax.

"This is why I filed an urgent motion to lift the TRO and a comment on the petitions against RA 9337. I submitted them solely on their merits. I have also observed the sub judice rule and would never resort to making malicious statements against the Court."

Purisima said that he is aware that STAR business columnist Boo Chanco had written a column on the EVAT and gave the impression that Purisima had claimed that the TRO was issued following Palace pressure.

"The contents of which (Chanco’s column) apparently gave the impression that I supplied Mr. Chanco with an account of events that supposedly led to my resignation. Mr. Chanco claims that I felt truly betrayed when I reportedly got a phone call from an official telling me, yung hinihingi ninyo sa Supreme Court binigay na (the Supreme Court has granted what you were asking)," Purisima said.

"This has no basis. I wish to make it clear that I never gave Mr. Chanco an interview on these matters, and that I never made any such statement or opinion in any forum or to anyone else. In fact, I wasted no time in calling Mr. Chanco to personally ask him to reveal his sources, because I did not have any participation in the publication of his article or in the utterance of any statement or opinion therein contained."

Purisima said that since his resignation last July 8, he has been the subject of many media reports, both in print and broadcast.

"While I have never made any statement or otherwise expressed ideas that would dishonor the Court and its members or put them in disrepute and discredit, or degrade the administration of justice, I have no control over what media actually reports. I hope that I will not be held answerable for statements falsely attributed to me," he said.

Purisima stressed he has "nothing but utmost respect for the democratic institutions which uphold and strengthen the national interest, foremost among which is this honorable court. I, therefore, not only understand, but also empathize with, the righteous indignation that this honorable court is feeling as a result of the published articles and other media reports."

Purisima and nine others urged Mrs. Arroyo to resign after they quit the Cabinet following fresh allegations that she cheated in last year’s presidential election.

Mrs. Arroyo won by a narrow margin over her closest contender, the late movie star Fernando Poe Jr., who accused her of robbing him of victory.

His electoral complaint, however, was junked by the Supreme Court shortly after he died of a stroke in December.

The current political crisis was sparked by the opposition’s release last month of audio tapes in which a woman who sounds like Mrs. Arroyo speaks with a presumed election official in an apparent bid to influence the 2004 vote count.

Mrs. Arroyo has apologized to the nation for improperly calling an election official during the tallying of votes but insists she did not try to fix the vote.

Mrs. Arroyo refuses to resign but is willing to face an impeachment challenge.

Opposition lawmakers plan to endorse an impeachment complaint filed in the House of Representatives last month by lawyer Oliver Lozano.