Gov't files motion vs TRO on GMA watchlist

MANILA, Philippines - Government lawyers have asked the Supreme Court to give them more time to comment on Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s petition to have her name dropped from the immigration watchlist and for a temporary restraining order (TRO) from the SC.

“It is respectfully prayed that respondent be given reasonable time to comment on the present petition and the application for a TRO before any action on the said application for the issuance of a TRO is taken by the honorable court, or that this very urgent manifestation and motion be treated as an opposition to the said application and that the same be denied for utter lack of merit,” Solicitor General Joel Cadiz said in a 16-page “very urgent manifestation and motion” filed with the SC on Wednesday.

The former president’s lawyers filed a petition with the SC questioning the watchlist order almost immediately after Justice Secretary Leila de Lima rejected on Tuesday a request for medical treatment abroad for Arroyo’s cervical spine.

The DOJ said it was not convinced of Arroyo’s promise to return to the country to face a string of non-bailable cases including electoral fraud and plunder.

In its motion, the OSG also asked the SC to set the date for oral argument on Arroyo’s petition only after it has submitted its comment.

“With petitioner’s travel abroad, any eventual decision on the petition would not bring back petitioner to the Philippines. No amount of judgment then will recompense the Philippine state for the irreparable injury caused to it with the flight from Philippine jurisdiction of herein petitioner,” the OSG argued. An issuance of a temporary restraining order by the SC on the travel restrictions on Arroyo would cause “irreparable damage” to government’s efforts to make her accountable for the offenses imputed on her, the OSG said.

It added that with a TRO, the government would be “rendered powerless from compelling her to answer to criminal complaints and charges against her and which are already pending disposition at the preliminary investigation stage.”

Government lawyers also argued that Arroyo’s right to travel under Article III Section 6 of the Constitution “is not absolute” but limited by Department Circular No. 41 that gives the DOJ the power to place respondents in criminal cases under watchlist order or hold departure order.  The circular, issued by Arroyo when she was still president, is still valid. Ironically, Arroyo also wants the SC to declare the circular unconstitutional.

Separate manifestation

The OSG also filed on Wednesday a separate 12-page manifestation for a similar case involving former first gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo. The OSG raised the same arguments in its manifestation for Mr. Arroyo’s case. Mr. Arroyo was first put on the watchlist in August in connection with his alleged involvement in an anomalous purchase of helicopters for the police in 2009. The SC issued a TRO on the watchlist order only to lift it after the DOJ removed Mr. Arroyo from the list.

But last month, Mr. Arroyo was again placed on the watchlist – this time in connection with his alleged involvement in poll fraud in 2007.

In their petitions filed last Tuesday, the Arroyos both invoked their constitutional right to travel, and sought the revocation of DOJ’s Circular 41.

“Department Circular No. 41 issued by the Department of Justice, which is not a ‘law’ enacted by Congress, restricts the right to travel, is, on its face, void for being in violation of Sections 1 and 6, Article III of the Constitution,” Arroyo argued through counsel former solicitor general Estelito Mendoza.

In an ambush interview yesterday, De Lima said “we’re keeping our fingers crossed the Supreme Court would rule not on partisan or political considerations and so-called acts of gratitude.” The SC is composed mostly of Arroyo appointees.