Inside Philippine politics & beyond

How Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo got caught in her own mousetrap – halo vest and all

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

 

My analysis

By Raïssa Robles

GMA - health MOUSETRAPHave you ever set a mousetrap and then yowled in pain as you stepped on it because you forgot all about it?

Well, that’s what happened to former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her cohorts. And as a result, she may not be seeing the Swiss Alps this Christmas as she had hoped to.

Do you recall that during the twilight of her administration last year, Arroyo and her officials issued over a thousand midnight appointments that included a hairdresser, a gardener and the current Supreme Court Chief Justice?

And alongside those midnight appointments were hundreds, if not thousands, of midnight orders?

Well, one such midnight order has turned out to be a sort of legal mousetrap that has caught Arroyo, her husband Jose Miguel and over 30 others.

This is Department Circular No. 41 signed by Arroyo’s own  Justice Secretary Alberto Agra on May 25, 2010 – at a time when the entire Arroyo camp should have been packing their bags in preparation for moving out of government by June 30.

DC 41 is Justice Secretary Leila de Lima’s legal basis for banning Arroyo et al from flying out of the country.

This seemingly innocuous circular was issued by Agra to “consolidate” regulations pertaining to the use of  “hold departure orders”, “watch list orders” and “allow departure orders”.

But it did more than that. It noted that existing Supreme Court Circulars “clearly state that ‘Hold Departure Order shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts.’ ”

Because of this, DC 41 said, these Supreme Court circulars left a gap because they were “silent with respect to cases falling within the jurisdiction of courts below the RTC as well as those pending determination by government prosecution offices.”

It is the last clause, which I posted in red, which De Lima is using to bar the Arroyo couple from traveling – because they have five complaints filed against them “pending determination by government prosecution offices.”

 

De Lima cited the following Arroyo pending cases:

GMA---Health---Law---5-case

Source: From Justice Secretary Leila de Lima's decision rejecting ex-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's request for travel

The short DC 41 circular states that the justice secretary

is in the best position to institute measures to prevent any miscarriage of justice, without, however, sacrificing the individual’s right to travel;

The circular states that the justice secretary can bar anyone from traveling, not only “in the interest of national security, public safety or public health” but also if there is a request made be the following government officials:

  • Head of a Department of the Government
  • Head of a constitutional body or commission
  • The Supreme Court Chief Justice
  • The Senate President
  • The House Speaker

Now here is where the situation becomes hilarious.

This Tuesday November 8, 2011, lawyer Estelito Mendoza filed an urgent petition with the Supreme Court on behalf of Arroyo to declare DC 41 unconstitutional and to void it.

Mendoza was quoted by reporters as saying that a person’s right to travel may only be “impaired” in the “interest of national security, public safety, or public health.”

Therefore, Mendoza said, it was wrong for De Lima to bar Arroyo “in aid of her prosecutorial authority.”

Mendoza’s petition asked the Supreme Court to strike down DC 41 because it violates the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

By the way, shouldn’t this make us really wonder why Agra issued such a circular AFTER Benigno Aquino had emerged as the clear winner of the 2010 elections but before Congress had proclaimed him?

What was the intent of the Arroyo administration behind issuing DC 41?

It could not have been issued in order to prevent Senator Panfilo Lacson from fleeing because the latter had already slipped out to Hong Kong four months earlier.

You know, this circular really reminds me of what the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos used to do with his “Amendment No.6”.

Amendment No. 6 was an amendment Marcos inserted into the 1973 Constitution to give himself secret law-making powers.

Implications of a Supreme Court ruling on DC 41

It will now be a race between the Supreme Court and the justice department. If the Office of the Prosecutor under the justice department is able to file the cases against Arroyo in court, then an SC ruling on DC 41 could become moot and academic.

It will then be up to the court to decide whether or not to bar the Arroyo couple from leaving.

But if the Supreme Court goes ahead and rules that DC 41 is indeed unconstitutional, then it will have a different dilemma in its hands – that of convincing the public that it is not an Arroyo court even if most of its justices were appointed by her.

And should it allow Arroyo to go abroad and she fails to return,  the Supreme Court would be totally blamed for it.

By the way, this is not the first time that a high government official has been caught in this manner.  Ex-President Joseph Estrada was convicted for plunder in 2007 – a crime that he had voted to approve into law when he was still a senator.

I think this is what it means when someone says a person was “hung by his own petard.”

Still, I’d like to console Mrs Arroyo with the music below:

Check out my Related Stories

 

Gloria Arroyo’s downfall actually started in July

Gloria Arroyo stopped a woman, with an illness and a case just like hers, from leaving the country for four years

The only cure for ex-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

GMA photo wearing “halo vest” released by lawyer of last resort

Filipino endocrinologist calls GMA spokeswoman “funny”

___________________________

Here’s the entire text of DC 41 :

Republika ng Pilipinas
KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
M a n i l a

DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 41 JUNE 07, 2010

CONSOLIDATED RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE ISSUANCES AND IMPLEMENTING OF HOLD DEPARTURE ORDERS, WATCHLIST ORDERS, AND ALLOW DEPARTURE ORDERS

WHEREAS, while several Supreme Court circulars, issued through the Office of the Court Administrator, clearly state that “Hold Departure Order shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts,” said circulars are, however, silent with respect to cases falling within the jurisdiction of courts below the RTC as well as those pending determination by government prosecution offices;

WHEREAS, apart from the courts, the Secretary of Justice as head of the principal law agency of the government mandated to, inter alia, investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders, and provide immigration regulatory services, is in the best position to institute measures to prevent any miscarriage of justice, without, however, sacrificing the individual’s right to travel;

WHEREAS, the Department of Justice, therefore, issued Circular No. 17 on March 19, 1998 and Circular No. 18 on April 23, 2007 to respectively govern the issuance and implementation of Hold Departure Orders (HDOs), Watchlist Orders (WLOs), and Allow Departure Orders (ADOs), among others;

WHEREAS, in view of the problems that cropped up both in the issuance and implementation of said Orders, there is a need to review, revise and consolidate the two department issuances to ensure their effective implementation.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the provisions of existing laws, the following consolidated rules are hereby adopted:

Section 1. Hold Departure Order. – The Secretary of Justice may issue an HDO, under any of the following instances:

(a) Against the accused, irrespective of nationality, in criminal cases falling within the jurisdiction of courts below the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs).

If the case against the accused is pending trial, the application under oath of an

interested party must be supported by (a) a certified true copy of the complaint or information and (b) a Certification from the Clerk of Court concerned that criminal case is still pending.

(b) Against the alien whose presence is required either as a defendant, respondent, or witness in a civil or labor case pending litigation, or any case before an administrative agency of the government.

The application under oath of an interested party must be supported by (a) a certified true

copy of the subpoena or summons issued against the alien and (b) a certified true copy complaint in civil, labor or administrative case where the presence of the alien is required.

(c) The Secretary of Justice may likewise issue an HDO against any person, either motu proprio, or upon the request by the Head of a Department of the Government; the head of a constitutional body or commission; the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the Judiciary; the Senate President or the House Speaker for the Legislature, when the adverse party is the Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or in the interest of national security, public safety or public health.

Section 2. Watchlist Order. – The Secretary of Justice may issue a WLO, under any of the following instances:

(a) Against the accused, irrespective of nationality, in criminal cases pending trial before the Regional Trial Court.

The application under oath of an interested party must be supported by (a) certified true

copy of an Information filed with the court, (b) a certified true copy of the Prosecutor’s Resolution; and (c) a Certification from the Clerk of Court concerned that criminal case is still pending.

(b) Against the respondent, irrespective of nationality, in criminal cases pending preliminary investigation, petition for review, or motion for reconsideration before the Department of Justice or any of its provincial or city prosecution offices.

The application under oath of an interested party must be supported by (a) certified true copy of the complaint filed, and (b) a Certification from the appropriate prosecution office concerned that the case is pending preliminary investigation, petition for review, or motion for reconsideration, as the case may be.

(c) The Secretary of Justice may likewise issue a WLO against any person, either motu proprio, or upon the request of any government agency, including commissions, task forces or similar entities created by the Office of the President, pursuant to the “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003” (R.A. No. 9208) and/or in connection with any investigation being conducted by it, or in the interest of national security, public safety or public health.

Section 3. Completeness of Information. – To ensure the proper identification of the subject of the HDO/WLO and to avoid inconvenience to any innocent party, all applications or requests, including the HDO/WLO to be issued, shall contain the following information of the subject:

a. Complete name, i.e. given name, middle name or initial and surname;

b. Alias/es, if any;

c. Date and place of birth;

d. Place of last residence;

e. Passport details, if available;

f. Recent photograph, if available;

g. Complete title and docket number of the case; and

h. Specific nature of the case.

Section 4. HDO/WLO Validity. – The validity period of any HDO/WLO issued pursuant to this Circular shall be reckoned from the date of its issuance. The HDO shall valid for five (5) years unless sooner terminated. On the other hand, the WLO shall be valid for sixty (60) days unless sooner terminated or extended, for a non-extendible period of not more than sixty (60) days.

Section 5. HDO/WLO Lifting or Cancellation. – In the lifting or cancellation of the HDO/WLO issued pursuant to this Circular, the following rules shall apply:

(a) The HDO may be lifted or cancelled under any of the following grounds:

1. When the validity period of the HDO as provided for in the preceding section has already expired;

2. When the accused subject of the HDO has been allowed to leave the country during the pendency of the case, or has been acquitted of the charge, or the case in which the warrant/order of arrest was issued has been dismissed or the warrant/order of arrest has been recalled;

3. When the civil or labor case or case before an administrative agency of the government wherein the presence of the alien subject of the HDO/WLO has been dismissed by the court or by appropriate government agency, or the alien has been discharged as a witness therein, or the alien has been allowed to leave the country;

(b) The WLO may be lifted or cancelled under any of the following grounds:

1. When the validity period of the WLO as provided for in the preceding section has already expired;

2. When the accused subject of the WLO has been allowed by the court to leave the country during the pendency of the case, or has been acquitted of the charge; and

3. When the preliminary investigation is terminated, or when the petition for review, or motion for reconsideration has been denied and/or dismissed.

(c) All applications for lifting/cancellation of HDOs/WLOs must be under oath and accompanied by certified true copies of the documentary evidence in support of the ground relied upon.

(d) Any HDO/WLO issued by the Secretary of Justice either motu proprio or upon request of government functionaries/offices mentioned in Sections 1 and 2, when the adverse party is the Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, may be lifted or recalled anytime if the application is favorably indorsed by the government functionaries/offices who requested the issuance of the aforesaid HDO/WLO.

Section 6. Implementation of HDO/WLO/ADO Issuance and Lifting/Cancellation. – All Orders issued pursuant to this Circular shall be immediately transmitted to the Commissioner of Immigration for implementation, copy furnished the person/s subject thereof, to give the latter adequate opportunity to content the Order or request consideration thereof.

Section 7. Allow Departure Order (ADO). – Any person subject of HDO/WLO issued pursuant to this Circular who intends, for some exceptional reasons, to leave the country may, upon application under oath with the Secretary of Justice, be issued an ADO.

The ADO may be issued upon submission of the following requirements:

a. Affidavit stating clearly the purpose, inclusive period of the intended travel, and containing an undertaking to immediately report to the DOJ upon return; and

b. Authority to travel or travel clearance from the court or appropriate government office where the case upon which the issued HDO/WLO was based is pending, or from the investigating prosecutor in charge of the subject case.

Section 8. Issuance of Clearance/Certification of Not the Same Person. – Any person who is prevented from leaving the country because his name appears to be the same as the one that appears in the HDO/WLO issued pursuant to this Circular may, upon application under oath, be issued a Certification to the effect that said person is not the same person whose name appears in the issued HDO/WLO.

The Certification may be issued upon submission of the following requirements:

a. Affidavit of Denial;

b. Photocopy of the page of the passport bearing the personal details;

c. Latest clearance from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI); and

d. Clearance from the court or appropriate government agency, whenever applicable.

Section 9. Processing Fees. – Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 9279 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, there shall be collected and paid to the Cashier’s Office of this Department the following fees to cover the administrative costs for services rendered by the Legal Staff, to wit:

Issuance/Lifting or Cancellation/Extension of HDO/WLO
– P2,500.00

Issuance of Allow Departure Order
– P2,500.00

Issuance of Clearance/Certification of Not the Same Person
– P500.00

Section 10. Repealing Clause. – All rules and regulations, particularly those contained in Circular No. 17 dated March 19, 1998 and Circular No. 18 dated April 23, 2007, as well as all instructions, issuances or orders or parts thereof inconsistent with the Rules provided herein, are hereby superseded and/or repealed accordingly.

Section 11. Effectivity. – These rules shall take effect immediately.

May 25, 2010.

ALBERTO C. AGRA
Acting Secretary

Comments

  1. Miss Robles, your blog is soo addictive. Sumasakit na ang mata ko
    sa kababasa. Very interesting and informative ang mga comments ng readers
    mo. I was surfing about Ram’s murder when I saw your article about
    ex-senator Ramon Revilla and now na stuck na ako dito.
    Please continue writing about the Arroyos’. It’s so enlightening. I never thought
    she could be like some of our former pres. na nangungurakot.
    I even encourage my family back in the Phil to vote for her. I was very young
    when her father became the president. I remember making small
    Phil. flag and waving it when his motorcade passed along the street
    across from our school.
    God bless.

  2. Why is it that in Philippine jurisprudence the Supreme Court becomes a trial court. The SC shouldn’t be in the business of issuing TROs until and unless all appeals have been exhausted. Why, just because she WAS a president that that elevates her case above jurisdiction of trial courts? This Supreme Court is anything but.

  3. Saludo ako kay Raissa. Para siyang si Maria Ressa.

    Whoever you are, I love your writings. They are well-written, factual, informative and humorous at times.

    I hope you won’t side with politicians like VP Binay who at this time, is already campaigning for President of the Land.

    Let’s pick our future President who do things like Sec De Lima. Have balls – will play but not the type of Sen Sotto, Arroyo, Angara, Lacson and Enrile.

  5. I am not that sure , but are there really hard evidences that would back these cases against GMA and her cohorts?Then what’s taking the PNoy govt. so long in filing these cases? I assume this hullabaloo would not have happened in the first place if they have done their homework. It maybe late in the day for this comment because I just read that the Comelec has already filed a case in one of the bucket list of cases of GMA. I just hope that one of these would stick for GMA and the rest, to rot in jail for the rest of their lives. Keep up the good work Ms. Robles.. .

  6. All the Philippines need to lift the country out of the third world list/ category is : TEN RAISSA ROBLES who is intelligent, honest , unbiased, informative journalist. To inform the Filipino peole how, why they are being fooled and cheated by politicians governed by greed.Raissa is worth a fortune to the modern age of journalism.Just look at your back, GMA has still tons of stolen money hidden… she is capable of paying an assassin..

    • Alam mo, maraming tulad ko.

      Maami sa kanila nasa wires services based in Manila.

      Yung iba nasa TV, radio at newspapers.

      • humble raissa…but as phil hipolito says…just be careful and be ready to face the consequences… noble endeavors are faced with all its woes…but the reward is overwhelming…here and hereafter. Allah bless your tribe!

        • Are you threatening me?

          It’s easy to issue threats when one is far, far away like Sudan, right?

        • go raissa! you have many supporters. to you threatening pinkee, get a life and be honest in your ways.

      • miss raissa my topic is way-out from this but i just wanted to ask you about this?
        kasalanan ba ng mga pulis ang di paglabas ng mug shot ni gloria arroyo?
        why are they upholding it to publish? this is for the filipino people, she’s already arrested for electoral sabottage, and that’s a criminal consequences right? Erap mug-shot was realeased after they have taken,..I dont wanted to compare,..I just wanted her mug shot to be publish to be fair to everyone…what can you say miss raissa?

        • Grey area yan.

          They just want the court to give the go-signal para hindi sila ang mapagalitan.

          Don’t worry, there’s now a race among media men to try to see who gets it first.

  7. This is what the Philippines need for the Phillipines to be lifted out from the third world list/category.. TEN RAISSA ROBLES ..honest,bright, intelligent reporter, unbiased, very informative journalist..kudos..

    • Not only people like me, who I can tell you are present in the wire services and the local media.

      We need HONEST politicians in positions of great power and temptation who will not succumb.

      And I think we have some of them in power now.

  8. I quote from J Michael Llamas:

    “OWN-MOUSETRAP ARGUMENT: A perfect match with the fact that the Constitution being defied by the incumbent President was drafted by 50 people appointed by his own mother. The same Constitution ratified by double the percentage of the Electorate who voted for him.”

    what can you say po dito ma’am raissa robles?

    • You know, nothing has been proven UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

      So, get back to me when the SC has ruled on the constitutionality of the entire issue.

      If you wanna use legal terms on this matter – Leila de Lima believes that Gloria Arroyo is IN ESTOPPEL when she argued that Agra’s DC 41 is unconstitutional.

      Did the SC take this up in its “thorough” closed door deliberation? We don’t know.

      All the SC told the Filipino people – you and me – is that 8 justices immediately granted the Arroyo couple’s travel request without verifying the truth to their statements.

      Is that legal?

      Yes, because it’s the SC talking.

      Is that fair to the Filipino people?

      No.

      Is this a justiciable or non-justiciable question?

      As the SC justices that question.

      • Because I want to be enlightened about the issue, I copy-pasted your reply to my conversation with Mr. J Michael Llamas. And here’s what he said:

        “Wrong on all counts.

        1A: FACT: On estoppel, there is nothing relevant to this case which constitutes ‘an established truth as determined by the acts of judicial or legislative authorities.

        Evidently, even the 20yr-journalist-and-blogger hasn’t a clue what ‘in estoppel’ means and shows no signs that she has even heard the term before. The rest of us must not be so easily impressed and must not parrot anything.

        1B: FACT: Sec de Lima–I am still puzzled why she was the best whom Aquino III could find to serve the interests of the Filipino people–is acting as member of the Executive Branch, thus is neither a Judicial nor a Legislative Authority.

        ___

        2 FACT: You yourself may not know it, but many of us DO know that 13 of the 15 Justices–two are on leave at present–conducted deliberations and voted.

        The Supreme Court’s spokesperson himself–you and Ms Robles should find every video clip of him explaining this subject again and again and again.

        ___

        3A: FACT: No Court is obliged to provide the public with details of its deliberations–a Court is obliged to announce only its decision and its details, as well as in the case of, say, the Supreme Court, the votes and any dissenting opinions.

        3B: FACT: Courts exist to conduct examinations of matters of law brought before it and to render a decision–they do not exist to titillate the public nor to provide material for minute analysis by self-appointed amateur critics.

        Which explains why though in America the Legislature once debated whether to introduce cameras while both parties are being grilled by the Justices, never has it been suggested that cameras should also record the deliberations which Justices conduct among themselves. (review 3A above)

        ___

        4A: FACT: There is no dispute over which provisions in the Constitution these matters fall under–the dispute is whether curtailing an individual’s Right to Travel in this case does fall under the exceptions specifically listed by the Constitution.

        Even Robles, even Ms Mesina I trust, even you I expect, would know what those specific exceptions are–and be able to determine whether the Arroyo case falls under at least one of them. REGARDLESS of how that reality makes you ‘feel’.

        4B: FACT: The Supreme Court’s issuance of a TRO is as legal as any other TRO issued by any other Court–the ‘T’ stands for ‘temporary’ thus does not constitute a verdict on the arguments which both parties have yet to present, NOTWITHSTANDING all the relevant facts which 13 Justices took into consideration when they conducted deliberations before reaching a decision on whether or not to issue a TRO.

        Something which the nature of the numerous questions posed to the Supreme Court spokesperson indicates that there are unfortunately many self-confident observers who fail to understand the above fact–unfortunately, including the 20-yr journalist-and-blogger.

        ___

        5A: FACT: Even when both parties to this case–the Government as represented by Sec de Lima and the Arroyos as represented by their lawyers–present their arguments next week, the ‘truth of the travel plans’ is IRRELEVANT.

        5B: FACT: The Constitution designates the Right to Travel as exactly that–a RIGHT. Ergo, a citizen needs no permission–whether from the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch–to enjoy and to exercise that right.

        5C: FACT: The same Constitution clearly and concisely lists the specific exceptions to that right–the specific cases under which that right may be curtailed.

        5D: FACT: In none of those specific exceptions listed is there a requirement that the citizen provide specifics of her travel plans.

        5E: Do not confuse [A] a case where a citizen is asking the Court for EXCEPTION to a prohibition, and [B] a case where a citizen is asking the Court to CONFIRM a RIGHT that someone else–in this case, the Executive Branch–is seeking to curtail.

        ___

        6A: Who exactly are ‘the Filipino people’ you are referring to–
        [A] the Filipinos who–like Robles, de Lima, Aquino III, yourself and many others–want the Arroyos tormented, REGARDLESS of what the Law says?

        [B] the Filipinos who–like Mr San Andres, Atty Teodoro Locsin Jr, myself and many others–want everyone who is found guilty under the Law to be punished, regardless of whether we ourselves happen to favour those parties or despise them?

        or even
        [C] the Filipinos who–like Aquino III, de Lima and many others, but standing on the opposite end–want some people exempted from the law regardless of what the law says and regardless of the rights and regardless of the proven crimes of those they favour?

        6B: FACT: You do not speak for the entire ‘Filipino people’, … any more than I do if I am ever shameless enough to argue based on my ignorance or argue despite what I know to be inconvenient facts, … any more than a group made up of a former President, some members of the clergy, some serving and retired Generals, and a few ‘hundred thousand’ of the Middle Class in the capital decided in 2001 to reverse through the streets the verdict of the ‘poor and illiterate’ electoral majority, expressed through polling booths across the country, did when they deposed a President and annointed Macapagal-Arroyo in his stead.

        ___

        At some point–preferably now, or failing that then very very very soon–the Filipino people must grow up.

        The Filipino people MUST learn that the Rule of Law–yes, including the Constitution and including Due Process–applies to everyone, including oneself, including those whom one favours, even including those whom one despises.

        The test of our–your–commitment to that thing called ‘rights’ is not when you demand it for yourself, but when you are required to hold yourself back out of respect for the rights of somebody else. Yes, even when you otherwise despise that person.

        ___

        Cheers.”

        Thanks and I hope you react on his comments.

        • I’d like you to react to Justice Sereno’s dissenting opinion.

          Some of the points you raised against me – she raised.

        • Reaction to Leopold’s post…

          If I may interject, the current administration has a clear mandate from the people (secured via the recent Presidential elections)..while this current Supreme Court doesn’t. In terms of political credibility, who do you suppose has a higher public trust rating…the one who got elected with the most votes and was declared president by Congress? Or the one who was just a midnight appointee? It doesn’t take a law degree to figure out the right answer to this one.

          In scenarios, wherein the Executive and the Judiciary (both co-equals) sharply disagree with one another’s interpretation of the law, the Legislative (another co-equal body) may offer to moderate or sort out the disagreement.

          The Legislative body being the one who drafted the law, equally has the same credibility as the body interpreting the law. After all, it was the crafter of the law who provided substance and definition of said law.

          The question here now is: would this current SC (specifically the majority bloc, the ruling 8 if I may call it that) be so humble and so liberal as to allow a third co-equal party to sort out the disagreement? The obvious answer is: no, since they fear the complete erosion of whatever shred of public trust it believes it possesses.

          A mediation appears to be out of the question since it may as well lead to a domino effect, e.g. impeachment of the Chief Justice and his minion justices, etc.

          Furthermore, in scenarios of a deadlock between the conflicting views of the Executive and the Judiciary, whose political will do you think will prevail? The one who directly wields the police power to enforce the law? Or the one who simply wields the meager pen power to order entities to enforce the law?

          Yes, I know how the whole anarchy/constitutional crisis works out…yadah yadah…but think about it…who’s political will really be better off for all of us Filipinos?

        • Maybe all those facts are true… but if the people get fed up we MIGHT FIND OUT IF PEOPLE POWER CAN BE USED TO OUST THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES… Hmm, if the supreme court feels that they don’t owe the PUBLIC any sort of credible explanation then there is something wrong with the whole system… the UNLEARNED masses that took part in the french revolution gave us democracy and it is the same unlearned masses that allows people to be in power… I for one would love to see how a SC Justice looks like while he is hanging from a lam post or is being bludgeoned to death… I wonder if his education will save him?

  9. WHEREAS, apart from the courts, the Secretary of Justice as head of the principal law agency of the government mandated to, inter alia, investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders, and provide immigration regulatory services, is in the best position to institute measures to prevent any miscarriage of justice, without, however, sacrificing the individual’s right to travel;

    Section 7. Allow Departure Order (ADO). – Any person subject of HDO/WLO issued pursuant to this Circular who intends, for some exceptional reasons, to leave the country may, upon application under oath with the Secretary of Justice, be issued an ADO.

    issues:

    is the hdo issued against gloria for prevention of any miscarriage of justice?

    is there a sacrifice of gloria’s right to travel?

    does the purpose of the travel come within the purview of exceptional reasons?

    in as much as i am not a fan of gloria; however, there is a big possibility that she is going to win this battle. that sucks big time.

  10. Remember these justices who protected the Filipino:Opposed TRO
    Justices Maria Lourdes Sereno, Bienvenido Reyes, and Estella Perlas-Bernabe. Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Jose Mendoza opposed Arroyo’s request.

    These justices who betrayed the Filipino:favored TRO
    Chief Justice Renato Corona, Justices Roberto Abad, Jose Perez, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Presbitero Velasco, Arturo Brion and Martin Villarama.

    Nobody can ever trust CJ Corona, a lapdog of GMA.

Trackbacks