Palace urged to wait for SC ruling on appointments

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) appealed yesterday to Malacañang to exercise what it called “judicial courtesy” in the implementation of the executive order of President Aquino revoking the midnight appointments of the previous administration.

Court administrator Jose Midas Marquez, who is also the SC spokesman, said that while Executive Order 2 could be implemented due to the absence of a temporary restraining order (TRO) from High Court, prudence dictates that the Palace should just wait for the decision of the court on whether or not it would issue the relief sought by separate petitions filed last Monday by two officials affected by the order.

“It would be more prudent to maintain a status quo in the meantime since the court has already acquired jurisdiction on the issue. What we’re asking is for them (Palace) to just give the court a little more time on deciding whether it would issue a TRO or not,” he suggested.

He was referring to the non-extendible period of 10 days given by the SC for the Palace to comment on the case before deciding whether or not a TRO would be issued. The deadline for filing of comment falls on Aug. 23.

Marquez believes that the move from the Palace to already implement EO 2 due to the failure of petitioners Director Eddie Tamondong of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) and Assistant Secretary Jose Arturo de Castro of Department of Justice (DOJ) to secure a TRO could cause inconvenience to parties if the court later decides to issue the restraining order.

“It might be very difficult for those perceived covered by the executive order to leave their offices and then later on return if ever the SC issues the TRO. We want to avoid that,” he explained.

Marquez stressed that the decision of the justices not to issue a TRO during their full-court session last Tuesday does not necessarily mean disapproval of the petitioners’ prayer.

He explained that in urgent cases, the chief justice could issue a TRO upon concurrence of the magistrate in charge of the case. The full court would then give their concurrence on the order during a later session.

Marquez clarified that the Palace is correct in its opinion that EO 2 is still legal at this point and could be implemented.

In separate petitions filed last Monday, Tamondong and De Castro questioned the legality of EO 2. They said the order not only violated several provisions of the Constitution, including security of tenure for government officials, but also showed abuse of executive power.

President Aquino signed EO 2 last July 30 that revoked the appointments made by the previous administration allegedly after March 10, two months before the national elections.

The Palace also issued Executive Order 3 that revoked EO 883 that former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued last May 28 that granted career service officer rank to all government lawyers.   

Elena Bautista-Horn, Arroyo’s spokesperson, maintained yesterday that the former president did not make any “midnight appointments” and urged President Aquino to go easy on firing appointees of the previous administration.

The Office of Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) said the members of the board of directors of subsidiaries of the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) could stay on under the Aquino administration.

Issuing Opinion 109, series of 2010, OGCC officer-in-charge Elpidio Vega expressed this view addressed to BCDA president and chief executive officer Narciso Abaya after the President issued Memorandum Circular 1 last June 30.

Abaya sought the OGCC’s opinion to settle disputes on whether the terms of the members of the board of BCDA subsidiaries Clark Development Corp. (CDC), Clark International Airport Corp. (CIAC), John Hay Management Corp. (JHMC) and Bataan Technology Park Corp. (BTPC) expired last June 30 under the circular.

Vega said that the circular applied only to “all presidential appointees whose appointments indicate their status as coterminous” and that “coterminous presidential appointees are those whose appointments co-exist with the term of the president who made the appointments.”

The law provides that “the board shall be composed of a minimum of seven members who being trustees of the government, may be removed at any time by the President,” he further noted. – With Paolo Romero, Perseus Echeminada, Delon Porcalla, Ding Cervantes