TRO reversal benefits 2 party lists
By EVANGELINE DE VERA
MALAYA
MALAYA
THE Supreme Court yesterday issued a status quo ante order (SQAO) on the disqualification of a senior citizens party list in effect reversing the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno last May 29.
During a special en banc session, the high court stopped the Comelec from implementing its May 10 ruling disqualifying the Coalition of Senior Citizens Philippines, Inc., and Abang Lingkod, a party list for the poor, both of which have been assured of a seat in the House of Representatives.
The SQAO was a direct rebuff on the Sereno TRO, which stopped the poll body from further proclaiming winners in the party list race, and halted the awarding of the five remaining party list seats.
The Senior Citizen’s party list case was assigned to Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, but an insider said that instead of transmitting the recommendation of the justice-in-charge (De Castro) to the clerk of court which is the standard practice, Sereno decided to “interfere” by issuing her TRO at the time when the justices were on recess.
De Castro formally questioned the Sereno TRO, saying it was not what she had recommended. She claimed that what she recommended was to prevent the Comelec from implementing its May 10 resolution which disqualified the Senior Citizens party list with finality.
It was not the first time that Sereno’s order was reversed by SC justices, but court observers said that it was the first time in SC recent history that a chief justice was rebuffed by his or her colleagues.
Sereno’s colleagues also revoked the administrative order that she unilaterally issued in November last year over the creation of the Regional Court Administration Office in Cebu.
Court spokesman Theodore Te made much ado over the media’s use of the term “rebuffed,” “overturned,” “rescinded,” or “revoked” to describe the action of the justices on Sereno’s TRO.
“(I) respectfully disagree with your choice of (the word) ‘rebuff’ and ‘again’. Both are factually inaccurate,” Te said in a conversation with a reporter over Twitter.
Te said that the proper term should have been “superseded” since the SQAO was “not inconsistent” with the TRO. He declined to discuss further the meaning of “supersede” alongside other terms used.
Earlier during his press briefing, Te said no vote was given in the SC resolution, and that the actual text of the SQAO is still being signed by the clerk of court.
He said that SC’s SQAO states that the Comelec is “directed to refrain from implementing its resolutions disqualifying the Senior Citizens and Abang Lingkod partylist groups, both of which were promulgated May 10…, and to observe the SQAO.”
In the Senior Citizens party list case, the Comelec is directed to reserve seat or seats intended for the party list group in accordance to the votes it garnered in the elections. The group supposedly obtained 677,642 votes that would entitle it to two seats.
Elections chair Sixto Brillantes Jr. said he is at a loss on the decision of the Supreme Court.
“It was already read to me but I still cannot understand the decision (of the SC),” said Brillantes. “I believe it is unclear (what we should do next).”
He said he would want to see a full text of the order first before the Comelec decides on what to do next.
“The commission en banc will really have to discuss it first. It is unclear unless we can read the entire order,” said Brillantes. – With Gerard Naval
No comments:
Post a Comment