Birds of same feathers

Hole of Justice

by Peter G. Jimenea
 
Birds of same feathers

Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice Renato Corona approved the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the travel ban issued by DOJ Sec. Leila De Lima on Gloria M. Arroyo and husband Mike.

The justices inadvertently overlooked they are inviting trouble. The TRO issued is a drastic move to put ineffective the DOJ hold departure order (HDO) against the couple. Unfortunately, they failed to satisfy the requirements, thus, many believe the DOJ order stands.

Had it not on the immediate filing of Election Fraud, CGMA could have easily got out of the country. It reminds me of former SC CJ Artemio Panganiban after the ousted of Pres. Joseph Estrada. He once said, it is the will of the above that GMA became a president. Now let’s hear from him again on whose will is this plight of his former boss.

Rumor mills didn’t stop grinding overnight that Hacienda Luisita has started this political mess. The pro Corona supporters even suspects that the railroading of impeachment to the Senate was done in haste by congressmen identified with the administration.

Yet, according to Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, as long as those pre arranged rules of procedures are followed, ( just because some people think it was done in too much of a hurry) it will not necessarily affect the validity of proceedings. And as the rules were followed, transmittal to the Senate by the Lower House is proper.

Besides, being conditional, there are unfixed glitches in the issuance of TRO by the Supreme Court. The purpose of a TRO is to prevent a threatened wrong and to protect the property or rights involved from further injury, until the issue can be determined after a hearing on the merits.

But there was no hearing conducted so as to determine the validity of the TRO on merits.  Besides, it is strictly confined to individual right and personal interest of the former president. Now, what about the national interest of the majority and their right to demand justice?

Taking all the equities of this case into consideration, this writer firmly believes legal interest should be factual and material, direct and immediate, not simply contingent or expectant. But this was done by justices of the High Tribunal, an entity whom we cannot impose ruling or enforce penalty.

Under Section 5, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a TRO may be issued only if it appears from the facts shown by affidavits or by a verified application that great or irreparable injury would be incurred by an applicant prior the writ of preliminary injunction.

But look who suffered the great injury or irreparable damage. Is it CGMA and family or the majority of citizens in this country? This is a very simple question that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an election offense had been committed by the accused.

As enunciated in Baltazar vs. People, the task of the presiding judge when the information is filed with the court is first and foremost to determine the existence of a probable cause. All reasons contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored.

Probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed by the accused. In this case, it demands more than suspicion and requires less than evidence that would justify conviction.

But CJ Corona overtly professes what he covertly undertakes. He has yet to say about the Judiciary Fund Allowance at his discretion. Clandestinely taking what rightfully belong to others is thievery. But look, lot of lawyers volunteered to help him for free. Wow! Birds of the same feathers - flock together!