The Supreme Court has ordered the House of Representatives to file its comment on the petition filed by Ilocos Norte Gov. Imee Marcos and the so-called “Ilocos Six” provincial officials seeking to stop its inquiry into the alleged misuse of the province’s tobacco excise funds.
In its en banc session on Tuesday, the SC adopted a resolution giving respondents House committee on good government and public accountability chairman Rep. Johnny Pimentel, Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas and House Sergeant-at-Arms retired Lt. Gen. Roland Detabali 10 days to file their answer to the omnibus petition seeking not only to stop the legislative inquiry, but also to justify the detention of the so-called ‘‘Ilocos Six’’ after they were cited in contempt by the investigating panel last May 23.
“The Court directed respondents to comment on the Omnibus Petition within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice of Resolution,” SC spokesperson Theodore Te said in a media briefing.
The SC issued the resolution after Marcos and the Ilocos Six earlier prodded the high court to grant their plea to stop what they described as “not only unconstitutional but also persecutory” inquiry by the House on the alleged misuse of tobacco excise funds.
On Tuesday, the House investigating panel had ordered the release of the six Ilocos Norte officials, but were still required to attend the hearing set next month.
In a pleading filed last July 19, Marcos reiterated their urgent appeal for issuance of a temporary restraining order on the investigation of the House committee on the alleged anomaly in the purchase of P66.45 million worth of motor vehicles by the provincial government.
“Respondent committee on good government need not issue an arrest order for it to commit grave abuse of discretion nor to violate petitioners’ right to liberty. This is because the inquiry has already been purged of legitimacy at its inception and through the actuations of the respondents in the subsequent hearings. Consequently, Marcos cannot be forced to attend an unconstitutional inquiry,” the petition said.
“Simply put, forcing Marcos against her will to attend an illegal and unconstitutional inquiry is a violation of her right to liberty,” they added.
Pimentel earlier publicly threatened Marcos of arrest if she fails to attend the hearing, even showing to the media the detention room prepared for her.
The petitioners made the appeal after Fariñas and Rep. Johnny Pimentel, chairman of the House committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, filed a pleading last July 17 seeking to deny the plea for TRO. They rebutted the claim of respondents that the TRO would violate the principle of separation of powers of the judiciary and the legislature.
But the petitioners cited jurisprudence such as the 1935 landmark case of Angara v. Electoral Commission, which held that “when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them.”
The petitioners also contested the argument of the House leaders that their petition should be dismissed on the ground of forum shopping because the writ of habeas corpus case is already pending before the Court of Appeals.
Marcos and the so-called “Ilocos 6” argued that there was no forum shopping because they just wanted the SC to assume jurisdiction over the same habeas corpus case after the House earlier defied and disrespected the ruling and orders of the CA.
“There will be only one petition for habeas corpus, only on court hearing the petition, and only one judgment on the habeas corpus petition. The Omnibus petition is not a new petition for habeas corpus but a petition to transfer the pending petition for habeas corpus from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court,” they said.
The petitioners explained that the forum shopping argument of the lawmakers was misleading since they themselves conceded that the SC has original jurisdiction on the petition for writs of habeas corpus and Amparo.
Marcos and the Ilocos 6 reiterated their pleas after the high court failed to act on the case despite court rules requiring immediate action on petitions for writ of Amparo. The SC was supposed to tackle the case in regular session last Tuesday, but three magistrates decided to inhibit to hear the petition – including the justice to whom the case was assigned, prompting the justices to reset deliberations on the case on Tuesday, July 25.
The case was raffled to Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta but he recused himself from participating in the case because he claimed to be a relative of one of the respondents, House majority leader and Ilocos Norte 1st district Rep. Fariñas.
Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno and newly appointed Associate Justice Andres Reyes Jr. also inhibited from the case after earlier issuing a joint statement calling on the House committee on good government and public accountability to recall its show cause order against the three Court of Appeals (CA) justices who ordered the release of the “Ilocos 6.”
Last July 13, Marcos asked the Supreme Court to take jurisdiction on the habeas corpus case of the detained six provincial officials pending before the Court of Appeals following defiance by the House of Representatives of the CA orders for their immediate release.
In a petition, Marcos along with the so-called “Ilocos Six” officials — Pedro S. Agcaoili Jr.,Encarnacion A. Gaor, Josephine P. Calajate, Genedine D. Jambaro, Eden C. Battulayan and Evangeline C. Tabulog – sought for the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining the investigation of the House committee on good government and public accountability on the alleged misuse of P66.45 million in provincial tobacco excise funds.
The petitioners also appealed to the high court to order the release of the six provincial officials whose habeas corpus case remained unresolved by the appellate court and its earlier orders for their immediaterelease repeatedly ignored by the House of Representatives. Marcos and the six Ilocos Norte officials also sought the issuance of writ of Amparo “to protect the actual and threaten violations and infringement of their constitutionally-guaranteed rights to liberty and security of person.”
Meanwhile, Farinas chided the chief of staff of Bureau of Customs Commissioner Nicanor Faeldon for calling Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez an imbecile in one of her Facebook posts.
During the House committee on ways and means briefing on the import shipment selection process of BoC over the confiscation of P6.4 billion worth of shabu at a warehouse in Valenzuela City in May, Fariñas said lawyer Mandy Anderson’s social media post was “unbecoming” and “un-ladylike” conduct of a public official.
“Do you believe as a government official, you can call out the fourth highest official of the land an imbecile?” he asked.
But Anderson reasoned that she was just exercising her freedom of expression even if the concerned person was an elected official.
On a June 16 Facebook post, she said Alvarez was an “imbecile” after the House Speaker threatened to abolish the Court of Appeals which issued the release of the so-called Ilocos 6.
“Isn’t there anyone else in the House composed of 200+ representatives who can actually be speaker?? Nakakahiya na!” the social media upload read.
Marikina City Rep. and Deputy Speaker Miro Quimbo called on fellow representatives to give the customs bureau a zero budget for 2018.
He also slammed the BoC after P6 billion worth of shabu was able to pass the bureau’s Risk Management Office after entering the country and even placed at the express “green lane.”
“Until this matter is sufficiently explained to the House, I will move that the BOC receive zero budget for the coming year,” he said.”There is no way that a group of 290-plus imbeciles will approve the budget of an agency that calls it idiotic. There’s just no way.”