Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo V Hon Leila M de Lima G R No 199034 and
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo V Hon Leila M de Lima G R No 199034 and
1. [The Justices maintained their 8-5 vote on the issuance of the TRO. The
Jose Miguel T. Arroyo vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima (G.R. No. 199046),
majority thus “require[d]” Secretary De Lima to “IMMEDIATELY COMPLY with the said
November 18, 2011 : Dissent of Justice Sereno
temporary restraining order by allowing petitioners to leave the country.”]
I. THE FACTS
YES, the Resolution granting the petitioners’ prayer for a TRO should be
reconsidered.
[Late last Tuesday, November 15, 2011, the Supreme issued an “immediately
executory” Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the implementation of DOJ
[T]his Court cannot ignore a basic constitutional precept: the presumption of
Department Circular No. 41 and Watchlist Order and thereby allowing the petitioners
validity of official actions. Especially when the practice of issuing watch list orders,
Arroyo spouses to leave the Philippines after complying with the conditions in the Resolution.
has been practiced for decades by the Department of Justice, and many other
The respondent Secretary of Justice Leila De Lime however prevented the Arroyos from
analogous practices has been observed as well by many other governmental agencies,
leaving.
including this court, through analogous restrictive practices. This Court cannot turn
to a blind eye what is involved in running a government. xxx. What this all means is
The government, through the Office of the Solicitor General, immediately filed a
that a full hearing must be conducted before this Court decides to grant a TRO to
“Consolidated Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Lift Temporary Restraining
petitioners, none of whom, by their very own documents, are under any life-
Order”. Petitioner Gloria Macapagal Arroyo also filed an “Urgent Motion for Respondents to
threatening, emergency, medical situation.
Cease and Desist from Preventing Petitioner GMA from Leaving the Country.” She also
moved to cite the Respondent Secretary of Justice in contempt for failure to comply with the
While in the end we may ultimately strike down the issuance of Watch List
TRO.
Orders by the Department of Justice or uphold such orders and additionally provide
standards before the power to restrict travel of persons under preliminary
On November 18, 2011, the Court conducted a special en banc session to tackle the
investigation can be exercised, what is at stake this very day is a fundamental
pending incidents of the consolidated cases.]
question of whether we should presume that officials can perform the functions they
II. THE ISSUES have been performing for ages – in order that we maintain order in the running of a
country. Therefore, with all due respect, it is completely wrong for this Court to bend
Among the more important issues resolved by the Court during the special over backwards to accommodate the request of petitioners for a TRO to be issued ex
en banc session were as follows: parte without hearing the side of the government. xxx.
1. Should the Resolution granting the prayer for a TRO be reconsidered?
2. Was there compliance with the 2 nd condition of the TRO? If there is none, should the xxx xxx xxx
TRO be suspended in the meantime?
While this opinion was being written, Court Administrator and Acting Chief
of the Public Information Office (PIO) Atty. Midas Marquez informed the press that
the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was effective, i.e., “in full force and
effect.” Contrary to this interpretation, as stated, it was the understanding of a
majority that the TRO is “suspended pending compliance” with our earlier
Resolution. The operational ineffectivity of the TRO is implied – for it is a basic
principle that the failure of petitioners to comply with one of the conditions in the
Resolution dated 15 November 2011 is a jurisdictional defect that suspends, at the
least, the effectivity of the TRO. Therefore, the TRO, until faithful compliance with the
terms thereof, is legally ineffective. It was a human mistake, understandable on the
part of the Clerk of Court, considering the way the TRO was rushed, to have issued
the same despite non-compliance by petitioners with one of the strict conditions
imposed by the Court. Nevertheless, good faith and all, the legal effect of such non-
compliance is the same – petitioners cannot make use thereof for failure to comply
faithfully with a condition imposed by this Court for its issuance. The Court
Administrator cum Acting Chief of the PIO is hereby advised to be careful not to go