* * *
I read the dissenting opinions of Associate Justices Antonio Carpio and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno to the Nov. 29, 2011 resolution of the Court. That resolution, by a vote of 7-6, upheld the effectivity of the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued in favor of Arroyo despite her non-compliance with the conditions—set by the Court itself in its Nov. 15, 2011 resolution—just so the TRO would become enforceable. The dissents reveal explosive facts: the TRO specially favored Arroyo and Corona’s bias and partiality towards her.
1. The premature issuance of the TRO was revealed in the dissent of Justice Carpio who said that the TRO was actually issued and released to the petitioners before 6 p.m. of Nov. 15, even before petitioners’ compliance with the first two conditions of the TRO.
The high court had set conditions in its Nov. 15, resolution before the TRO could take effect: (1) the posting of a P2-million cash bond; (2) the appointment, by special power of attorney (SPA), of a legal representative who will receive subpoenas, orders and other legal processes on her behalf; and (3) Arroyo’s informing the Philippine embassy or consulate in the place where she will be traveling regarding her whereabouts at all times.
However, despite these clear conditions, the TRO was prematurely issued prior to Arroyo’s full compliance. She posted the bond and submitted the SPA only at 6 p.m. on Nov. 15, but the TRO had already been issued earlier. In fact, Supreme Court spokesman Midas Marquez confirmed in an interview that the TRO had already been issued “past 5 p.m.” This clearly shows the premature issuance of the TRO.
Furthermore, given the irregularities of the issuance, it is evident that only the Court could have authorized the irregular issuance to allow Arroyo to flee and escape prosecution, Carpio said.
2. In her own dissenting opinion, Justice Sereno revealed how she was prevented from publishing her dissent in the Nov. 15 resolution in violation of Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, which states: “any member (of the Supreme Court) who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution, must state the reason therefor.”
Sereno said she submitted her dissent on Dec. 2. However, the Clerk of Court refused to promulgate her dissent. Instead, lawyer Enriqueta Vidal, the clerk of court of the tribunal en banc, admitted that “she could not tell (Sereno’s) staff the real reason for the non-promulgation of (Sereno’s) opinion; that actually, Justice Presbitero Velasco instructed her, as “confirmed by the Chief Justice,” that Sereno’s opinion “should not be promulgated but that it should be taken up in the Dec. 6, 2011 en banc session.”
3. A reading of Sereno’s dissent shows why Corona suppressed it—to hide how he falsified the results of the Court’s Nov. 18, 2011 deliberations by correcting the draft resolution which changed the decision made by the Court.
On. Nov. 18, the Court had voted on two issues: whether or not Arroyo complied with the conditions for the issuance of the TRO; and whether or not the TRO was still effective.
The Court voted 7-6 that there was non-compliance by Arroyo with the conditions. However, the Court voted 7-6 to keep silent on the effect of the non-compliance since the ineffectiveness of the resolution was “common sense.”
In spite of the clear vote of the Supreme Court en banc, the Chief Justice made his own handwritten corrections to the resolution prepared by Justice Velasco on the decisions made on the Nov. 18 deliberations wherein he falsely made it appear that Arroyo “substantially complied with the conditions for the issuance of the TRO and that the TRO was in full force and effect.”
Despite the fact that Corona’s handwritten corrections were contrary to what was approved by the Supreme Court en banc on Nov. 18, Corona ordered the clerk of court to immediately promulgate his “falsified version.”
4. Sereno’s dissent revealed that “while the resolution has not yet even been written,” Midas Marquez falsely told the public that the “TRO is in full force and effect and, as far as the SC is concerned, Arroyo can travel out of the country immediately.”
Marquez even falsely declared that the voting for the affirmation of the TRO was 9-4 when the truth was, the Court voted 7-6 that there was non-compliance."
