As a rule, a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or a “Status Quo Ante†(SQA) order is a provisional remedy. It is issued at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order. In fact in some petitions originally filed before the Supreme Court (SC), a TRO or SQA is already issued immediately upon the filing of the verified petition/s after the court finds from the allegations of the petition/s that the commission or continuance of an act or acts complained of, will work injustice to the petitioners; or that the respondent/s is/are doing, threatening or attempting to do, or procuring or suffering to be done, act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the petitioner/s respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual ( Rule 56, Rules of Court).
In the case of the Petitions filed before the SC questioning the constitutionality and validity of the RH law, the court did not immediately grant a restraining order upon the filing thereof but opted to hear the parties first. The SC found it more prudent and wise to first hear what the respondents, specifically the Executive Secretary (OP), the Secretaries of the Departments of Budget and Management (DBM), Health (DOH), Education (DepEd), and Interior and Local Government (DILG), have to say about the allegations of the petitions instead of just issuing such order right away. As a gesture of reciprocity and respect to a co-equal branch of government, and in keeping with the principle of separation of powers, the respondents should not take steps to implement the law until the SC finally resolves the case and settles the constitutional issues involved.
But in this case, the respondents, particularly the Department of Health (DOH), did not wait anymore for the SC to resolve the case. It hastily drew up the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) and set a date for the implementation of the law. It did not wait anymore for the resolution of the pending case by the SC. Under the circumstances, the SC had to naturally and rightfully do something about it otherwise its judgment may be rendered ineffectual.
Actually the SC Resolution was only released yesterday as I was writing this piece. And the order is actually denominated as a “Status Quo Ante†(SQA) order effective immediately and for 120 days. But whether it is called SQA or TRO the effect is substantially the same. The RH law cannot and should not be implemented yet for the next 120 days. It could be said therefore that the SQA was issued here because the respondents “ask for it†as the saying goes.
The more authentic and deeper reason for the SQA, however, is that the SC has indeed initially found a scintilla of constitutional infirmities in the RH law which must be closely scrutinized and extensively studied. Hence it has set the case for oral arguments on June 18, 2013. In this connection, it must likewise be pointed out the SQA order may even last longer than 120 days. It is more accurate to say that the SQA order is effective until final resolution of the case. If the case is set for hearing on June 18, 2013 or 90 days from the issuance of the SQA order, it may take the SC more than the remaining 30 days to render a decision. And for all we know, considering the outcome of the deliberations on the issuance of the SQA order where 10 Justices voted in favor thereof and five justices voted against it, the SQA order may even become permanent injunction against the implementation of the RH law because the SC may junk it for being unconstitutional.
The SQA order is admittedly a piece of good news to us who have been defending the culture of life now under siege by the aggressive intervention of foreign governments and international organizations out to depopulate our country to promote their hidden selfish agenda under the guise of supposedly solving our problem of poverty. It is really quite a relief to know that the implementation of the RH law has been stopped especially because the means and methods provided therein endanger life, the sanctity of marriage and the solidarity of the Filipino family. But it must be pointed out that this is just a temporary relief. We have to be more vigilant because clear and present dangers still lurk ahead.
First of all there is still the possibility that the means employed in “convincing†our legislators to enact the RH bill into law will also be used getting an SC ruling upholding its constitutionality and validity. The independence of the SC must be safeguarded. And the SC Justices are in the best position to ensure such independence. They should strictly stick to the constitutional issues presented in the various petitions and apply them to what the RH law itself exactly provides.
The SC should not consider extraneous comments like what is now coming out in the papers deploring the issuance of the SQA order. Rallies are even organized and held in the SC grounds asking for the immediate implementation of the RH law allegedly because so many lives of women are endangered due to its non-implementation. This is really dangerous as it will be politicizing the SC which is not a political branch of the government. When people look at the SC as another political branch, there will come a time when they will also be exposed to “political pressure†by the other branches of government like what the Executive Branch employed to the Legislative Branch in enacting the RH law.
Let the SC do its job alone free of any pressure especially on such a vital issue.
Note: Don’t fail to watch the TV show “Ipaglaban Mo†tomorrow Saturday at 2:30 pm in GMA News TV Channel 11. Tomorrow’s episode is about case showing that the real Kapamilya are not only the kapatid o kadugo but all the Kapuso.
* * *
E-mail: attyjosesison@gmail.com