'The state has a right to be heard'

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) justices who voted against the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the travel ban on former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo wanted to give the government five days to give its side.

SC Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno proposed to set for Nov. 21 comments on the petition, and Nov. 22 for oral arguments before a decision is reached immediately.

“The only proposition that the minority has posed in today’s session is that the State first be heard before any decision to grant a TRO is reached,” Sereno wrote in her dissenting opinion, wherein she cited inconsistencies in Arroyo’s petition with regard to her illness and travel plans.

SC Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio also said, “This should not take more than five working days.”

“Considering there is absolutely no medical emergency that is evidenced by any of the documents submitted by petitioner Arroyo, the allegations on the matter remain but mere allegations, and do not satisfy the evidentiary requirements for a TRO that can be issued ex-parte,” Sereno wrote.

Carpio agreed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) that allowing the Arroyos to leave would frustrate investigations against them and jeopardize public interest on the government’s pursuit of accountability on anomalies during the previous administration.

“While the right to travel is a constitutional right that may be impaired only ‘in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law,’ there are recognized exceptions other than those created by law,” he said.

Carpio was referring to the exemption cited in Article III Sections 1 and 6 of the Constitution.

It explicitly provides that the right to travel of a person shall not be impaired except “in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may provided by law.”

Sereno, President Aquino’s first appointee to the SC, said the Arroyos failed to satisfy evidentiary requirements for a TRO, and instead submitted “inconsistent and probably untruthful statements” before the SC.

Sereno cited Mrs. Arroyo’s claim that her inability “to leave for abroad to alleviate, or at least, prevent the aggravation of her hypoparathyroidism and metabolic bone disorder has given rise to the danger that said conditions... may become permanent and incurable.”

Sereno pointed out that the above declaration contradicted an attached certification issued by Mrs. Arroyo’s attending physician, Dr. Juliet Gopez-Cervantes, which stated that “petitioner (Mrs. Arroyo) should fully recover from her spine surgery in six to eight months, barring any complications.”

Sereno said this finding was the same as that of Dr. Mario Ver who performed the series of spinal surgeries on Mrs. Arroyo.

“[H]er own attachments belie the immediate threat to life she claims,” she said.

Justices Carpio and Sereno were two of the five justices who voted against the issuance of the TRO.

SC spokesman Midas Marquez said their opinions were already passed upon during deliberations of the justices.

They became the minority opinion since they were outvoted by eight justices who were for issuance of the TRO, he added.