Capitol dads hail TRO denial
Vice Governor Rolex Suplico hailed Tuesday's denial of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) sought over the now highly-controversial 2008 Capitol Budget.
Calling it a "pro-people Order," the Vice Governor, presiding chair of the 9th Iloilo Sanggunian Panlalawigan (SP) was among the respondents for Special Civil Action No. 2008-639.
Standing as sole petitioner was Rex Barber of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo who sought the Court's intervention saying if the Capitol budget as slashed will be pushed it will prejudicial to him and his group. Barbers represents fellow persons with disability.
Yet the Court ruled otherwise.
In a three-paged Order, Judge Daniel Antonio Gerardo Amular, Assisting Judge of the Branch 66, 6th Regional Trial Court in Barotac Viejo averred the petitioner failed to establish "his clear right to the peremptory extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunction….."
"I laud the RTC of Barotac Viejo for the pro-people order. This is a confirmation that indeed the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is not a rubber stamp sangguniang," Vice Governor Suplico said.
Same sentiments shared by First District Board Members Richard Garin and Macario Napulan and Ex-officio Board Member Celia Colada.
"It was a very just and appropriate decision..one that we were confident because we know that what we were standing on and pushing for are within the bounds of law," Garin said.
Colada for her part said she hopes that with the TRO denial the issue will finally be resolved and the province can move on.
Meantime for Board Member Napulan, the petition as filed seemed to have been "haphazardly done."
"In my opinion, it was really not very well prepared. Nevertheless, all we want though is for the Appropriation Ordinance to be in order and that's what we did in the Provincial Board. We did not cause for anybody to have difficulty in availing the delivery of basic services. Again all we did was to fix the Appropriation Ordinance," Napulan added.
With the denial of the TRO, Suplico insists anew that the Capitol Budget as amended by the SP is operative.
Judge Amular in denying the TRO further explained the requisites needed for a Writ of Injunction to be granted.
First, the right of the petitioner must be clear and unmistakable. Second, the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial and third, there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
"The grounds cited by the petitioner in support of his application for temporary restraining order do not convince this court of his clear positive right which should be protected. At most, the allegations of the petitioner maybe considered as contingent, abstract or future rights. No serious damage sought to be prevented was established," Judge Amular said.