More drama than is good for us

By Boo Chanco I was thinking, while watching the high drama of last Tuesday evening that all that hoopla cant be good for us. If we can only channel all the energy and passion of that evenings real life soap opera into something more productive, we will probably become a first world country in no time. Unfortunately, we are having our fun and games at the expense of the nations development.

I have two thoughts on what happened. It would probably have been easier for the P-Noy administration to just let her go as the Supreme Court ruled she could. But that would have made the government look helpless in its drive to make officials accountable for their actions while in public office. The judicial bullying of the Arroyos, with the unfortunate connivance of the Supreme Court would have rewarded such unwanted and unwarranted behavior.

As a non-lawyer, it was confusing to listen even to the words of the Court Administrator. Earlier in the afternoon, he said that theDOJ and the Solicitor Generals office would be served a copy of the TRO for compliance. I guess the legalists among us would call media reports mere hearsay and only the actual signed order from the High Court is officially actionable.

Later in the evening, he said they failed to serve a copy at the DOJ because they came after five in the afternoon and so he said media reports would serve as sufficient notice to government of the SCs TRO. The news about the TRO came out as early as two in the afternoon. DOJ is just a few steps away from the Supreme Court. If the Court Administrator really wanted DOJ to get a copy, they could have done it within the three hours between the news break and close of office hours. DFA used to be in the building now housing the SC and I had no problem going back and forth from DFA to DOJ several times a day as a reporter when I covered both beats.

I think! the fai lure to serve the TRO was premeditated. Even if every media outlet reported the same story, DOJ needed the TRO order in black and white. The position DOJ took that evening would have been more difficult to make if there was proper service of the order. I think delaying service of the order and causing the problems that happened was part of a script. The Arroyos must have badly wanted to deliver a strong message to the Aquino administration on who really is still the boss.

It was also unfortunate that media coverage that evening was confused. They had a lot of air time but they were saying the same things over and over and not enough information on the issues at hand. The Arroyos won the propaganda war that evening. They had more air time and the visual of a neck-braced Gloria Arroyo being lifted into a wheelchair from an ambulance was meant to win sympathy as she is portrayed as a suffering underdog. From my many years in media and media relations, it looked scripted planned by a good director worthy of a FAMAS award.

Media should have provided more context on the issues at hand which could have been provided by the dissenting opinion of Justice Antonio Carpio. But I only heard of the Carpio opinion after the drama was over. The dissenting opinion suggests that the Arroyo loyalists in the Court were rather unreasonable to fast track the issuance of the TRO.

In his dissent, Justice Carpio wrote that he is voting to defer action on petitioners prayer for a temporary restraining order until after the Government files its Comment and after oral arguments are heard on the matter. This should take not more than five working days, which is brief enough so as not to prejudice petitioners in any way.

Justice Carpio pointed out that in fairness to the Government which is tasked with the prosecution of crimes, this Court must hear first the Government in oral argument before deciding on the temporary restraining order which if issued! could f rustrate the Governments right to prosecute. The Government must be heard on how the charges against petitioners could proceed while petitioners are abroad.

I am sure many fair minded people will agree the concerns raised by Justice Carpio are very reasonable. This is more so because medical experts have already said that there is no urgency in the former Presidents condition that makes a trip to a foreign expert a matter of life and death. That being the case, her constitutional right to travel is not being curtailed as much as precautions are just being put in place to make sure she will be around to answer charges once these are filed.

Curiously, SC Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in her dissent, noted the issue focuses on a Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular (No. 41) issued by the Arroyo administration. The Arroyo Government must be presumed to have believed in and implicitly represented that it is valid and constitutional. An explanation from her must be heard on oral argument on why this no longer seems to be the case.

In fact, DOJ points out the Supreme Court has already recognized its power to issue a watch list order two years ago, when the Court upheld a similar order given by then DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzalez in 2007. Then Justice Secretary Gonzalez placed Fr. Robert Reyes and 49 others under the immigration watch list while they are under investigation for rebellion.

I reject the suggestion that P-Noy was just being mean to his predecessor. Given the many instances wherein prominent personalities have been able to effectively escape accountability by fleeing abroad, the Justice Secretary has an obligation to make sure this big one will not be the next such case. Otherwise, she would also be guilty of negligence.

It would have been easier for P-Noy to just let her go and should she and her husband eventually seek asylum abroad, it would be easy to lay the blame on the Supreme Court and delight in an Arroyo lawyers! promise to castrate himself. In fact, I was thinking that this was the best option for government to take, if the only consideration was public image. After all, even with the current Supreme Courts less than savory image, citizens still want to see everyone following its orders for the sake of having the image of rule of law prevailing in our country. Two branches of government in bitter conflict cannot be reassuring.

It is not an easy dilemma the administration faced. The constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas voiced the opinion that she has the constitutional right to travel. Yet, the Jesuit also told GMA News, if Gloria leaves, nothing can compel her to come back. If she doesnt come back she will never be tried in court.

It was a calculated risk on the part of the P-Noy administration to take the hard position they did. But if they lost some brownie points for doing that, those are brownie points well spent. It showed the administration had the guts to make difficult decisions, even one that may make it unpopular.

What they did was to effectively serve notice that this kind of judicial bullying will not work. The Arroyos cannot hide behind the protective cloak of her SC appointees now or in the future, pitting one branch of government against another. The administration served notice that two can play a game of cat and mouse.

The unfortunate thing is that the drama that unfolded live on television didnt show us or our government in the most positive light, at a time when some world focus was on us due to US State Secretary Hillary Clintons visit. Maybe media can also do some soul searching and think of ways of intelligently covering similar future events with more thought and less melodrama. Media must realize they are there to help form informed public opinion and not to merely satisfy our national craving to be usiseros.

Hopefully, everyone will sober up in the next few weeks, months or years and we can all concentrate on the urgent task of eco! nomic de velopment once and for all.