CA gives Tupas, Armada camps 25-day 'extension' as questions raised on TRO
Cebu City -- Lawyers for key Capitol officials of the Iloilo Provincial Government embroiled in the continuing controversy brought by the double dismissal orders for Governor Neil Tupas and two provincial board members will have to wrap up respective arguments before the Court of Appeals (CA) here.
This, as the CA 19th Division chaired by Justice Isaias Dicdican ordered for final Memorandum from the Tupas camp and the "respondents" -- Tanodbayan Merceditas Gutierrez, Secretary Ronaldo Puno of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), the Office of the Ombudsman, Iloilo Vice Governor Roberto Armada, Board Member Manny Gallar and the Iloilo People's Graftwatch. In order to avert any delays, a corresponding order was also issued that said final arguments will have to be "personally delivered" within a 20-day period and the subsequent counter-arguments in the next 5 days thereafter. From thereon, a decision is expected to be reached whether an injunction will be granted or not. It was not however clear how much time is allotted for said CA Resolution to be released.
The CA's latest order came in open Court in Monday's hearing that got private lawyers from both camps facing off before Justice Dicdican, CA 19th Division Senior Member Justice Augusto Dizon and Justice Francisco Acosta.
Docketed as CA G.R. Ceb 02419, at the center of the arguments and counter-arguments are the double dismissal orders on Tupas Sr. and Second District Board Member Cecilia Capadosa from the Ombudsman and dismissal as well for Fourth District Board Member Domingo Oso. The Ombudsman found the trio guilty in administrative charge for dishonesty filed then by the Iloilo People's Graftwatch.
Lawyer Cornelio Panes, lead counsel for Armada made the opening statement for the respondents which lasted about 40 minutes as Tupas sat a few rows behind with wife Myrna, son Neil Tupas Jr, Capitol lawyers Salvador Cabaluna II, Jonar Pueblo and Tupas consultant, Pepe Tioco. Panes presented his argument 'point-by-point' as he laid it down starting with "Fact No. 1" on the Ombudsman double dismissal orders to Tupas Sr. and Capadosa and dismissal too for Oso Jr. Panes continued with his other "facts" including the question raised on the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued.
Panes presented Supreme Court's (SC) Administrative Circular No. 20-95 addressed to the CA, the Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Administrative Circular 20-95 laid down special rules for TROs and Preliminary Injunctions wherein foremost of the condition set is that prior to the raffle of a pleading for such, notices must be sent to the adverse party. Secondly, the TRO must only be acted upon "after all parties are heard in a summary hearing conducted within the twenty-four (24) hours." However in cases of "extreme urgency," a TRO may be issued effective only for 72 hours from issuance with summons immediately made to parties concerned. The TRO extension if ever granted thereafter shall not exceed 20 days including the original 72 hours.
Rebuttal came from Tupas counsels headed by lawyers Eugenio Original and Hector Teodosio. Original in his argument called on the issuance of an injunction on their case saying "great injury" will be done to his client if not heeded.
"Great injury," Original told the CA justices, particularly since Tupas won by a large margin in the last elections and intends to run again in May. If no injunction is granted and the Ombudsman's dismissal orders will be upheld, Original asked the Court how then will his client be able to file his Certificate of Candidacy.
The Ombudsman's dismissal orders for Tupas Sr., Oso Jr. and Capadosa all carried accessory penalties of perpetual disqualification from government employ and office and the cancellation of all benefits.
Tupas lawyers also argued that the Ombudsman has no power to dismiss elective officials but merely recommend yet Justice Acosta interjected saying several recent Jurisprudence as upheld by the Supreme Court have already settled the matter stating that yes, the Ombudsman has said powers.
In the end Justice Acosta said thanked both camps saying "everybody argued intelligently."