SC blooper: Wrong info issued on TRO

MANILA, Philippines - Confusion marred the Supreme Court’s issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the plunder charges former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and nine others are facing before the Sandiganbayan in connection with the alleged misuse of P365.9 million in Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) funds.

The SC announced yesterday morning that Arroyo was also covered by the TRO issued regarding the petition of her co-accused, former Commission

on Audit Intelligence Fund Unit head Nilda Plaras, only to correct the statement in the afternoon.

The Court’s public information office (PIO) sent text messages to reporters in the morning informing them that the SC Third Division had issued a “TRO on former President GMA’s (Arroyo) arraignment before the Sandiganbayan on PCSO plunder case.”

The Third Division chaired by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. issued the TRO “as prayed for, enjoining the Sandiganbayan from implementing its assailed resolution dated October 3, 2012, which ordered the issuance of an arrest warrant versus petitioner, among others, effective immediately and continuing until further orders from the Court.”

But at around 2 p.m., the SC PIO backtracked and clarified that the

TRO only applied to Plaras and not to Arroyo who filed a separate petition last Oct. 24.

“This to clarify that the October 24, 2012 temporary restraining order issued by the Court’s Third Division in GR Nos. 203693-94, Plaras v. Sandiganbayan, enjoins the implementation of the warrant of arrest against petitioner Nilda Plaras as ordered in the assailed resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated October 3, 2012,” it explained.

The PIO was only relying on orders from the justices before making announcements.

The SC made the clarification even after the First Division of the Sandiganbayan had already proceeded with the hearing in the morning and entered a “not guilty” plea for Arroyo, who refused to be arraigned due to her pending petition in the SC.

The anti-graft court had immediately interpreted the TRO as exclusive to Plaras and does not cover Arroyo and the other co-accused.

Arroyo spokesman Raul Lambino claimed that the TRO on Plaras should also cover the former president.

“The issue raised is not the serving of the warrants of arrest but the implementation of the resolution, so this (TRO) should apply equally to all warrants of arrest,” Lambino said.

He said even assuming that the TRO will benefit only Plaras, the charge of plunder was based allegedly on a conspiracy where the act of one is the act of all.

“If Plaras will be exonerated as co-conspirator, then the effect is that it will also favor the other co-accused in the plunder,” he said.

Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda even reacted to the wrong SC announcement, saying that Malacañang respects the TRO.

“Well, we respect, again, that is a decision coming from the Supreme Court and as always we respect the jurisdiction of the SC,” said Lacierda.

He said that what is important is that Arroyo was arraigned and is now under the jurisdiction of the anti-graft court.

He said the effect of the TRO is that the trial will not yet start until the SC resolves Arroyo’s petition to nullify the plunder charges.