KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS: GMA ‘probably untruthful’ in SC petition PDF Print E-mail
Friday, 18 November 2011 15:10


LIFE’S INSPIRATIONS: “… And the truth shall make you free…” (the Lord Jesus Christ, John 8:32, the Holy Bible).
* * * *

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE SERENO: There are always two sides to a coin, or even more, if we will just be perceptive of things. And this is very true in the Supreme Court order allowing Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and husband Mike to travel abroad, despite a travel ban imposed by the Aquino government, through Justice Secretary Leila De Lima.

The dissenting opinion of Associate Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno gives us the other side of the Supreme Court ruling, and what an explosive other side it is! For the sake of truth and information to the public, I am reprinting some portions of this Sereno opinion today, and perhaps in the days to come.
* * * *

“GOV’T MUST BE HEARD FIRST BEFORE TRO”: First point of Justice Sereno: the government must be given the opportunity to be heard on the issue of Arroyo’s travel before any temporary restraining order is issued, considering that the documents the former president submitted to the Supreme Court belie her own claims about the real purpose of her going abroad.

“If she has been shown to be prone to submitting to this Court documents belying her own allegations, this Court must pause, and at the very least, listen to the side of the Government,” Sereno said.
* * * *

ARROYO SC PETITION AMBIVALENT: Second point of Justice Sereno: the petition of Gloria Arroyo before the Supreme Court, and its annexes, do not inspire belief in the sincerity and urgency of her travel as one for medical purposes.

Here is her explanation of this second point: “The Rules of Court and jurisprudence prescribe very stringent requirements before a TRO can be issued. Among these is the requirement that the TRO `may be granted only when: (a) the application or proceeding is verified, and shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded...’ (Rule 58, Section 4).

“So strong is the requirement of truthful allegations in pleadings filed before the Court that many adverse inferences and disciplinary measures can be imposed against a person lying before the Court.
* *  * *

GMA’S  PROBABLY UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS TO SC: “This requirement of truthfulness is especially important when a provisional remedy, and more so when the remedy is sought to be granted ex-parte, is under consideration by the Court. When on its face, the material averments of a pleading contain self-contradictions, the least that the Court should do, is consider the other side of the claim.

“This is the situation with the Petition of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. It appears that she has given inconsistent, and probably untruthful statements before this Court…” More of this next issue!