THE camp of Ilocos Norte Gov. Imee Marcos and the six detained Ilocos Norte officials is urging the Supreme Court to stop the “unconstitutional” and “persecutory” inquiry by the House of Representatives on the alleged misuse of tobacco excise funds that is set to resume tomorrow.
In an 11-page pleading filed on July 19, Marcos reiterated their plea for a temporary restraining order to stop the investigation of the House committee on good government and public accountability on the alleged anomaly in the purchase of P66.45 million worth of motor vehicles by the provincial government using the excise funds.
Their counsel, former solicitor general Estelito Mendoza, cited “grave and irreparable injury” on Marcos should the high court fail to issue the TRO in time for the resumption of the House probe.
“Forcing Gov. Marcos against her will to attend an unconstitutional inquiry devoid of any legality is an unquantifiable injury,” Mendoza said in his motion.
“It coerces Gov. Marcos to attend an inquiry led by her accuser, Respondent Fariñas [House majority leader and Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas] who has maligned and prejudged her of violation of Republic Act No 7171.”
The petitioners also cited the public pronouncements of House committee chairman and Surigao del Sur Rep. Johnny Pimentel that Marcos was guilty of the charges against her.
“Clearly, it is the height of injustice if Gov. Marcos will be forced to attend a proceeding that is not only unconstitutional but also persecutory”•a proceeding that condemns rather than hears,” the pleading says.
Marcos’ camp insists that she has “clear and unmistakable right” for the issuance of the TRO even before the House could order her arrest if she failed to appear in the hearing on Tuesday.
“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,” Mendoza’s motion says.
“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, Gov. Marcos cannot be forced to attend an unconstitutional inquiry.
“Simply put, forcing Gov. Marcos against her will to attend an illegal and unconstitutional inquiry is a violation of her right to liberty.”
Pimentel earlier publicly threatened Marcos of arrest if she fails to attend the hearing and showed reporters the detention room being prepared for her.
The petitioners filed their comment in response to the opposition filed by Fariñs and Pimentel on July 17 to the plea for a TRO.
They rejected the respondents’ claim that the TRO would violate the principle of separation of powers of the judiciary and the legislature.
But 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 was already pending before the Court of Appeals.
Marcos and the so-called ‘‘Ilocos Six’’ argued that there was no forum shopping because they just wanted the high court to assume jurisdiction over the same habeas corpus case after the House earlier defied and disrespected the ruling and orders of the appellate court.
