Top priority

MANILA, Philippines - Please allow us to respond as we take strong exception to the First Person column of Mr. Alex Magno, entitled “Omission”, which appeared in the 13 October 2009 issue of The Philippine STAR, where he accuses the Supreme Court of “dragging its feet” on the election case between proclaimed Bulacan Governor Joselito Mendoza and former Bulacan Governor Roberto Pagdanganan, who Mr. Magno admittedly claims is his “golfing buddy.”

Records show that the petition was filed before the Supreme Court only last 8 July 2009, or some three months ago. Considering that it involves an election controversy, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, the petition was immediately included in the agenda of the following en banc session.

Thus, on 14 July 2009, during the ensuing regular en banc session, upon considering the serious allegations in the petition, the Court directed the respondents “to file a comment within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days,” as well as “RESOLVE(D) to issue a STATUS QUO ORDER for the return to and the maintenance of the situation prevailing at the time of the transmittal of the ballot boxes to the Senate Electoral Tribunal,” and enjoined the Commission on Elections “from further proceeding with the revision of the ballots until further orders from this Court.”

“We find the issuance of a Status Quo Order appropriate and compelling in light of the alleged violation of the petitioner’s constitutional right to due process — the conduct of proceedings in an election contest without notice to him and to which he has every right to be present or at least to be represented,” the Court, not just the Chief Justice, reasoned.

Clearly, the issuance of the Status Quo Order was a unanimous decision by the Members of the Court, reached after a full deliberation, and not issued by the Chief Justice alone, more so “at whim,” as Mr. Magno puts it.

Respondent Pagdanganan and the Office of the Solicitor General filed their Comments on 17 July 2009 and 24 July 2009, respectively. Thereafter, the Court required petitioner Mendoza to file a Reply within a non-extendible period of ten days, which the Court received on 27 August 2009. And between then and now, contrary to the pronouncements of Mr. Magno that “[i]t is entirely at the whim of the Chief Justice to include or exclude the item in the agenda of the tribunal sitting en banc,” the case has been repeatedly included in the agenda of the Court en banc and the subject of deliberations by the Members of the Court.

 As adverted, the Court has given top priority to the resolution of this, and all other election cases pending before it. And to allay Mr. Magno’s fears that “the whole matter is thrown into some sort of purgatory,” be rest assured that a decision on the merits will soon be forthcoming.

It is hoped that this clarification will find print in your paper at the soonest possible time for the edification of your numerous readers. More power to The Philippine STAR! — JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ, Chief of Staff, Office of the Chief Justice, Acting Chief, Public Information Office Deputy Court Administrator