THE LEGALITY OF DOJ-COMELEC JOINT PANEL

Here's the Press Release of the Supreme Court's PIO on the scheduled hearing of the petition questioning the legality of the DOJ-COMELEC joint panel today:

The Supreme Court will rule on the legality of the joint DOJ-Comelec committee that conducted preliminary investigations in the poll fraud cases against former President now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, that led to the filing of election sabotage cases against her before the Pasay regional trial court.

The issues were raised in the separate petitions filed by former First Gentleman Jose Miguel "Mike" Arroyo and former Elections chair Benjamin Abalos Sr., both alleging that the creation of the joint panel is unconstitutional and was meant only to persecute the former President.

The two petitions have not been acted upon by the SC last Tuesday, except to consolidate them. On Monday, Arroyo's lawyer Ferdinand Topacio filed a supplemental petition seeking the issuance of a temporary restraining order to enjoin all respondents, and their agents from proceeding with the preliminary investigation, and to declare null and void all acts committed by the joint committee that paved the way for the filing of a criminal information against Arroyo in court.

Court spokesman and administrator Jose Midas Marquez, however, declined to comment on how the SC will rule on the petitions, or whether the court will grant the prayed for TRO or issue a status quo ante order. "I don't want to preempt what the court will do on those two petitions but there are so many things that can happen there. Without discussing the merit, the court can dismiss the petition outright if it thinks the petition is moot and academic. Or, if it thinks the petitions are not moot and academic, the court can require respondents to comment.

Again at the end of the day, the petitions will either be dismissed for lack of merit, or petitions will be granted because the court or majority of justices will find the two petitions meritorious," he said. Marquez said that it would be difficult to predict scenarios based on mere speculations, especially since the justices have different appreciation of facts, applicable laws and provisions of the constitution.

He said that of the 15 Sc magistrates, Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo may or may not joint today's voting as he has just been discharged from the hospital due to a heart ailment. "Even if the court issues a TRO or SQA, the court can always issue other conditions or other orders that would prevent this and that. All these are really speculations at this point… It's going to be very difficult to speculate what the court order will be. If they don't agree, then a vote will be taken," he said.

In his original petition, Arroyo called the joint DOJ-Comelec panel a "kangaroo court designed with the sole purpose of persecuting (him) and his ailing wife," through the heads of both the DOJ and Comelec, respondents Justice Secretary Leila de Lima and Comelec chair Sixto Brillante. On the other hand, Abalos claimed DOJ-Comelec Order no. 002-2011 creating the joint panel violates his constitutional right to equal protection of the law because the panel is serving the functions of law enforcer, prosecutor and judge at the same time.

Meanwhile, the high court will hold oral arguments at 2pm today on the validity of the DOJ Memorandum Circular no. 41, which was the basis used by de Lima in placing the Arroyos under the Bureau of Immigration's watchlist. In the guidelines issued by the SC, each parties, through their respective counsels, were given a maximum of 20 minutes to present their respective arguments.

The parties were directed to limit their respective discussions on the following issues:

· Is the right to travel under Section 6, Article III of the Constitution absolute in the absence of a law restricting it, or is the right subject to inherent limitations that apply even in the absence of a law?

· Whether or not the assailed DOJ circular no. 41 constitutional, and whether de Lima has basis in issuing the circular. Under this, to answer the question whether the circular violates Section 6, Article III of the Constitution on a person's right to travel.

· Whether or not the WLO were issued with grave abuse of discretion, and whether the WLO is actually a hold-departure order. The parties were also urged to discuss whether it is only the courts which can issue a HDO; and whether the issues raised in the petitions regarding the WLO have become moot and academic.

The Arroyos separately filed petitions before the high court questioning the DOJ circular and de Lima's watch list orders (WLO). Last Tuesday, the SC granted said petitions and suspended the implementation of the travel ban with the issuance of a TRO, which de Lima, however, ignored. Arroyo had earlier sought the lifting of the travel ban so that she could seek medical treatment abroad for her hypoparathyroidism and metabolic bone mineral disorder.

On Friday, following a special en banc session, the SC affirmed the TRO after it junked the motion for reconsideration of state lawyers. However, this was superseded by the DOJ-Comelec's filing of an election sabotage case against Arroyo before the Pasay RTC.

The trial court, through Judge Jesus Mupas, subsequently issued the arrest warrant against Arroyo. (Evangeline C. de Vera)