Arroyo’s rights

Of course I agree with Justice Secretary Leila De Lima. The bigger national interest dictates that Rep. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and her husband should not be allowed to leave the country. As attested to by no less than the Secretary of Health, her illness is not one that cannot be addressed by Filipino doctors. The decision hence not to allow her to leave is not inhumane because she is not deprived of her right to health. Arroyo and I share the same hospital under the most competent medical professional, Dr. Cuanang. She can get her medical treatment from a world-class hospital right here in the Philippines
Despite my agreement with De Lima, the fact remains that this decision will inevitably be challenged before our courts. The possibility of this order being declared illegal looms. In a judicial system governed by stare decisis or precedents, the Court cannot deviate from its established rulings unless there are “drastic change in circumstances”. It cannot be denied that the Supreme Court in a very recently issued temporary restraining order in a case filed by Mike Arroyo already declared: “a restriction on rights should at least have the imprimatur of a court of justice; otherwise, an official of the Executive Department will have the power to determine who will or will not be allowed to exercise his constitutional right to travel.” It was the allegation of the former FG that the Justice Secretary could not restrict his to travel since he has no pending cases in court.

The weakness in the De Lima position is her own making. Unlike Arroyo who put President Joseph Estrada behind bars months after she, to quote Susan Roces, “stole” the presidency, De Lima and President Noynoy Aquino have waited all this time to even charge Arroyo with something. Eighteen months after occupying Malacañang, they have not filed any case against Arroyo and her husband in court. Worse, they have absorbed all the very close cronies of Arroyo even in the Cabinet. How could you expect the former President then to be brought to justice?

In favor of the De Lima position though is the case of Marcos vs. Manglapus. There, the former despot challenged then-President Cory Aquino’s refusal to allow him to return. In upholding the ban, the Supreme Court distinguished the right to travel, which is limited to travel within the country’s territory; to the right to leave and return to the country, which the court underscored was different and distinct from the right to travel. According to the court, the right to leave a country, including one’s own, “may be restricted (when) necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals, I disagree hence with Father Joaquin Bernas when he opined that Arroyo has the right to travel abroad. This right only applies to those with no pending legal investigation in their home countries.

But then again, the weakness in the current De Lima position is whether the restriction may be by virtue only of a pending preliminary investigation or whether it should be in court. We will soon find out

I am in Jakarta, Indonesia to attend the Asia Civil Society Consultation on National Security and the Right to Information Principles. On my way here, I met a Filipino who happened to be one of our sports coordinator for the Southeast Asian Games. He deplored the fact that despite PNoy’s “daang matuwid”, the crocodiles in Philippine sports, like Arroyo’s cronies in Aquino’s Cabinet, continue to lord it over. He called my attention to the fact that each of the 500 members of the Philippine delegation to the games were given plane tickets that cost 80,000 pesos each. My ticket on board the region’s most expensive airline amounts to less than 20,000 pesos. By golly, our delegation’s tickets cost 300 percent more! Mind you, these are economy seats, not first class!

Paging newly appointed Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales: Please help the cause of Philippine sports by charging these crocodiles in Philippine sports with graft and jail then together with Arroyo, her husband, and the singing handmaids of Arroyo who are now in PNoy’s cabinet.


Anent the right to information, I am in the minority on the need for a Freedom to Information law. Unlike other jurisdictions, the Right to Information is granted by the 1987 Constitution and not just by a statute. In fact, the Constitution says that legislation is required only to provide for the limitations to the right. Ergo, without the FOI bill, there are no limitations on the right, save for those recognized under jurisprudence.

The remedy for a denial of the right has also been provided by the Court in the cases of Chavez vs. PCGG and Chavez vs. PEA-Amari. According to the Court, the remedy is for journalists and citizens to resort to the filing of petitions for mandamus. In this regard, the civil society groups Concerned Citizens Movement and the Center for International Law will soon launch a legal clinic to serve as a one-stop center for journalists and citizens who want to exercise their right to information.


4 comments on “Arroyo’s rights

  1. simongc says:

    The rise and fall of Gloria has been an amazing phenomena , she looked so good at first: said all good things and declaring a love of a democratic parliamentary system . Her critics were right in saying she was full of bulldust and was not genuine in her concern for the democratic rights and freedoms of Filipinos . Reports of her going to Dominican Republic are absolutely bazaar . Her legacy THE MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE is going to be a hard record to beat by any future presidents..

  2. ricky a. pollo says:

    The problem with De lima”s arguments melts under its glaring failure to justify not following the lawful order of the Court. She argues that she still filing a motion for reconsideration thinking that it will stop the TRO. But as correctly explained by other lawyers, the tro bvecomes effective upon its issuance, as it may be issued ex parte. No need for notices or formal service to the other party, as it is temporary and an ancillary remedy. On second thought, this Supreme Court obviously was in hurry as to abet, a term in criminal law, the escape of Arroyo. On that same day Arroyo paid the 2 million ( God knows what else she has paid and to who,)bond, and was rushing to a flight booked a few minutes after the tro release. Were they communicating what was happening, where the justices texting the respondents or the petitioners. Secondly, as astutely put by Justice sereno, the claim of medical procedure to be done betrays the urgency with the fact that several meetings will be attended by arroyo, a factadverse to the claim of illness. Even sherlock holmes, or the medical teams on nighttime television, will not be hardpressed to commprehend of the acting of arroyo. There is a group of cabal of justices in the Supreme Court that should be impeached. Sir kindly read my own case, where it was declared that I dont have the right to privacy in G.R. 181881 dated October 18, 2011. Ricky Pollo vs. Karina David et al, where four people entered my office at night ang began siphoning my files in the evening. I was dismissed on the basis of the unsigned computer printout. the Vote the Cabal of justices got 8 and the more reasonable ones 6. Dissenting of J. Bersamin and J. Carpio, shared by serene , de castro, abad, velasco, I still have to file my Motion for reconsideration.

  3. aaron a. legaspi says:

    Atty. Harry how much will it cost an individual to file a mandamus against government who has free of charge lawyers all the way to the SC.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s