Justice Secretary Leila de Lima on Thursday invoked executive privilege when a senator-judge asked if she received information that Chief Justice Renato C. Corona used his position to influence the Supreme Court en banc in deciding to issue a temporary restraining order against the travel ban on former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo an her husband Jose Miguel.
Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano wanted to know from De Lima if apart from dissenting opinions of some associate justices there was someone else who might have told her that Corona was trying to influence the ruling on the
Arroyos’ Immigration watch list order.
"Did any information reach you about how the Supreme Court deliberated on the TRO?" Cayetano asked and told the Justice secretary to take a minute before answering his question.
"I decline to answer that question on grounds that it may be covered by executive privilege," De Lima replied after pausing for a few seconds.
Cayetano then turned to House prosecutor and Rep. Neri Colmenares.
"May employee ba sa Supreme Court na nagbigay sa inyo ng reliable information para tumibay ang belief ninyo na nagkaka-maneobrahan?" he said.
Colmenares was cued by members of the prosecution team before he replied. "Wala pong lumapit sa amin... At the time na nilabas sa media ang paglabas ng TRO, wala akong personal knowledge na may nagsabi sa akin," he said.
In an interview with reporters after Thursday's impeachment trial, defense lawyer Tranquil Salvador III declined to say if De Lima does not have the authority to invoke executive privilege.
De Lima could have invoked the privilege on the assumption that she was an "alter-ego" of President Benigno Aquino III, Salvador said.
One of the dissenting opinions against the TRO favoring the Arroyos was that of Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno. The resolution promulgating the TRO did not reflect on how the Supreme Court en banc voted, she claimed.
It was the “understanding of a majority that the TRO is suspended pending compliance" with the second condition for Arroyo to appoint a legal representative who will receive all documents and court processes from the high tribunal, Sereno noted in her opinion.
But in an interview with reporters last November, Supreme Court court administrator and spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez insisted the missing supplemental compliance did not mean the Arroyos failed to comply with the conditions. The TRO was issued on Nov. 15, 2011.
"The TRO stays in full force and effect," Marquez noted then.
In her dissenting opinion, Sereno narrated how the justices voted on several issues surrounding the TRO.
In the first round, the justices voted 8-5 in denying the motion for consideration filed by the Department of Justice through the Office of the Solicitor General, asking the Supreme Court to recall the TRO.
The second voting yielded 7-6 with the justices agreeing that the Arroyo couple failed to comply with the second condition.
By third round, the court voted 7-6 in saying there was “no need to explicitly state the legal effect on the TRO of the non-compliance by petitioners with condition number 2 of the earlier resolution."
The fourth and fifth voting resulted in an agreement to require the respondents and Justice Secretary Leila de Lima to explain why they should not be cited in contempt for defying the TRO.
The day the Supreme Court issued the TRO on Nov. 15, the Arroyo’s were booked on three airlines (Philippine Airlines, Singapore Airlines and Dragon Air) at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. The first two flights left without them, but Immigration officials kept them from boarding the Dragon Air flight.
According to the Sereno opinion, the final voting covered suggestions to reset the schedule of the oral arguments that were “ultimately denied."
— VS, GMA News
13 comments