Sanction SC’s Marquez for wrong interpretation
Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno was right to castigate Supreme Court spokesperson Midas Marquez for announcing an erroneous interpretation of the Supreme Court’s TRO ruling on the Department of Justice’s watch-list order (WLO) against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband.
In the Inquirer’s Nov. 21 issue, Marquez said that he based his announcement on the explanation of Chief Justice Renato Corona and in his talks with other justices who voted with the majority decision. In a press conference conducted immediately after the issuance of the TRO, Marquez said that the TRO was immediately executory, whether or not the conditions contained therein have been complied with. He reiterated the same interpretation in other subsequent media interviews. It now turns out that the TRO was conditional after all and non-compliance with the second condition (designation of a legal counsel to receive court orders, etc.) rendered the TRO ineffective as reflected in the 7-6 vote of the Supreme Court’s en banc session last Nov. 18.
As a responsible officer of the Court, the spokesperson should have read the TRO himself before making the announcement, instead of merely relying on what some of the majority justices had told him. Precisely, it is for this reason that the DOJ should have been furnished a copy of the TRO before it can be expected to intelligently act on it. It is the public’s perception that the current Supreme Court is an “Arroyo Court” and is expected to render the Arroyos favorable rulings on matters brought before it. Hindi kaya nakuryente si Marquez ng mga justices mismo (Wasn’t Marquez, perhaps, fed the wrong information by the justices themselves)?
Further, how could Marquez, as the Supreme Court’s clerk of court, issue a certification that the Arroyos have fully complied with the conditions stated in the TRO when, in fact, the second condition had not been complied with or its compliance was defective? It was negligent of him to have done so without verifying the document. If he had issued the certification after he had examined the power of attorney submitted by the Arroyos but had failed to notice the defect, either he is ignorant of the law or, much worse, he issued it with malice. I agree that Marquez should be sanctioned for this oversight.
—MYRON SANTILLAN,
