Browse By

Gloria Arroyo vs Leila De Lima and an individual’s right to travel

Analyzing DOJ’s decision to deny the ex president’s request to seek medical treatment abroad. This post has been published in AllVoices.com.

In denying due to “lack of merit” former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s application to travel abroad to seek medical treatment, Department of Justice Secretary (and possible 2013 senatorial candidate?) Leila de Lima raised the following points:

1. The camp of GMA has made conflicting statements as to whether she really has metabolic bone disease.

2. There is no urgent and immediate situation for GMA to seek medical treatment abroad (as concluded by Health Sec. Enrique Ona)

3. The former president has been inconsistent about the countries she intends to visit, and that some of those visits are actually for non-medical purposes

4. GMA has been unclear about how long the medical treatment she intends to seek will be completed (in an obvious sarcasm, De Lima pointed out that this “may actually take forever”).

5. The Philippines has no existing extradition treaties with the countries GMA listed in her itinerary – Spain, Germany, Austria, Italy, and Singapore.

Click here to download Secretary Leila De Lima’s resolution. 

Leila De Lima: “The temptation (for Gloria Arroyo) to simply escape criminal liability is definitely more real than apparent.”

According to De Lima, allowing Arroyo to travel abroad “puts her (GMA) beyond the jurisdiction of the State in the exercise of its … mandate to investigate and prosecute criminal acts.” Earlier in her resolution, she pointed out that “given the gravity of the charges” against the former president, “the temptation to simply escape criminal liability is definitely more real than apparent.” And in an apparent attempt to defend herself from future accusations of engaging in “mere speculations,” De Lima pointed out that flight from justice is one of the remaining hard choices left for Arroyo – especially since she is facing the probability of being detained “throughout the period of her trial for non-bailable offenses.”

An individual’s right to travel is guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution. Section 3 of Article III (Bill of Rights) states:

The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

Even if an individual’s right to travel is guaranteed by the constitution, former President Arroyo still needs the Justice Secretary’s approval to seek medical attention overseas because of DOJ Circular 41, signed by then-DOJ Sec. Alberto Agra last May 25, 2010 – or merely five weeks before Benigno Aquino III took his oath as the country’s 15th president. The said circular seeks to consolidate the rules and regulations governing the issuances and implementing of hold departure orders, watchlist orders, and allow departure orders.

In one of the circular’s “whereas” clauses, it was pointed out that Supreme court circulars related to hold departure orders are “silent with respect to cases falling within the jurisdiction of courts below the RTC as well as those pending determination by government prosecution offices” (thanks to veteran journalist Raissa Robles for emphasizing this).  According to the circular, the DOJ can put issue an HDO against someone who falls in the following circumstances:

(1) Against the accused, irrespective of nationality, in criminal cases falling within the jurisdiction of courts below the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs).

If the case against the accused is pending trial, the application under oath of an interested party must be supported by

(a) a certified true copy of the complaint or information and

(b) a Certification from the Clerk of Court concerned that criminal case is still pending.

(2) Against the alien whose presence is required either as a defendant, respondent, or witness in a civil or labor case pending litigation, or any case before an administrative agency of the government.

Does the former president's present health condition really necessitate seeking emergency medical treatment overseas?

The former president falls under the first category since her cases are still pending trial, or more accurately, pending determination of government prosecution offices. As I understand it, these refer to the Department of Justice and the Ombudsman. After determining if the complaints against Arroyo (plunder and electoral sabotage are the most prominent ones) are indeed sufficient in substance, the charges will have to be filed in the Sandiganbayan – who will then issue an arrest warrant against the former President, if necessary (as to when this will happen, no one knows). I am not a law student, but I am somehow familiar with how things go as a long time news junkie and as a former newspaper intern assigned in the justice beat.

I want to give my take on the five points raised by Secretary De Lima. In an interview with Manila Standard Today’s Christine Herrera, the former President said that “the uncertainty of not knowing her disease and if there is a cure for it was ‘killing’ her.” She continued: “All that the doctors could tell me is that I have an extremely rare bone disease,” she added.

I can sympathize with her on this. The past four years, I experienced repeated stomach pains. I have been rushed to hospitals, and on every instance, the pain didn’t last long due to medicines and painkillers, but the root cause of the pains (my gallstones) wasn’t determined until I had an ultrasound last month. If only due to this, I want to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Next, De Lima noted that Ona deemed Arroyo’s situation as not really threatening. His curriculum vitae (posted in the DOH website) shows that he is an expert in surgeries. He also served as the executive director of the National Kidney and Transplant Institute from 1998 to 2010. I am no expert in the field of medicine, which makes me curious to know, how competent is he to assess the former president’s situation? Does he know enough about hypoparathyroidism? I am just asking. And by the way, I agree with De Lima on her third and fourth points.

No matter how tough a medical operation is, doctors will still certainly be able to give a rough estimate of how long it will take before his/her patient is able to have full recovery. They can’t just say “Ms Arroyo, you will soon recover. Gagaling ka rin. Just wait for it to happen.” That’s stupid. And yes, a person who has been supposedly numbed by medications will not be able to withstand the physical rigors of visiting five countries in two (or maybe three, US included) continents, logically peaking.

And now, to De Lima’s last point (ergo, that Arroyo deliberately chose countries with no existing extradition deal with the Philippines). At the height of the international manhunt against Sen. Panfilo Lacson last year (he fled after being implicated in the murder of Salvador ‘Bubby’ Dacer and his driver Emmanuel Corbito in late 2000), the Philippine Daily Inquirer reported that Philippines has an extradition treaty with only eight countries and two states.

These are Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Korea, Micronesia, Switzerland, Thailand, and the United States. Can’t Arroyo find an expert in the United States or in Hong Kong (where former President Estrada had his knee surgery seven years ago)? Thailand is also known for surgeries – sex transplant, that is. Though it is tempting to plot this situation as a case of individual rights over people’s rights, it appears that is not the case.

The ailing former president has found some unlikely allies in her struggle to travel abroad, including Fr. Bernas (photo from Ateneo Law School website)

A number of Aquino allies (and staunch Arroyo critics) like Senator Franklin Drilon and Francis Escudero, have openly called on the administration to allow the former president to go overseas. Even eminent legal expert and constitutionalist Father Joaquin Bernas defended Arroyo’s right to travel, pointedly asking: “First, in what way will the travel of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo be a threat to “national security, public safety, or public health? Second, by what statutory authority is the justice secretary preventing the exit of GMA?”

This case will surely have far-reaching repercussions, especially now that it is already pending in the Supreme Court. If the high court grants Arroyo her prayer, then it will effectively render DOJ’s Circular 41 as powerless, and maybe even unconstitutional. This also means that all bucks will stop on the high court once Arroyo indeed refuses to return to the country to face the charges against her.

If the SC upholds Leila De Lima’s resolution, then guarantees must be put in place to make sure that DOJ does not overdo their power to restrict individuals facing charges locally from travelling. Malacanang must do its best to make sure that it is not perceived as being vindictive and acting like bullies by the public.  A failure to do so will give Arroyo some room to elicit sympathy – something the former leader has not accomplished so far.

UPDATE: Read the Supreme Court’s TRO in favor of Arroyo here.

Comments

comments

25 thoughts on “Gloria Arroyo vs Leila De Lima and an individual’s right to travel”

  1. Paco says:

    Very good writing.

    1. markpere2010 says:

      Thank you so much!

  2. accept it if you want says:

    The blatant attack of GMA’s defense against De Lima is unwarranted. De Lima does what she knows is the correct thing to do. Pinoy knows that too. By belittling De Lima,one can expect that she is dishing out what Gloria had the SC dish out to opponents not too long ago. Gloria now has to admit that she had this coming because she used to weld the same power over her enemies once before. But this is different, she has committed several offenses against the law and is being tried for it.. The people are not blind !

    1. markpere2010 says:

      Call that having a dose of your own medicine, or as journalist Raissa Robles said, being victimized by your own mousetrap. Let’s see how the SC resolves this very contentious issue.

  3. Paco says:

    Sec De Lima ought to respect and implement the law.The constitution warrants CGMAs travel and there is no other recourse for reasonable beings rather than for De Lima to appeal to reason.

    1. markpere2010 says:

      Personally, I am not against letting GMA seek medical treatment abroad. Maybe the Aquino administration can just send some DOJ special agents just to check on her every now and then while she is recuperating overseas.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Former president GMA is not guilty of any crime, and the fact that there are still no cases formally reached the SC, the way some Filipinos treat our former President is inhuman and humiliating! Prove in the court first all of your accusations before you judge. Dis respecting the highest and supreme court in the land is already very trendy, wow! Is this really a Christian nation? judging easily, disrespectful and utak talangka

    1. Anonymous says:

      Tama Penoy fans are so STUPID they don’t know that de lima’s is just a SCHEMING BITCH… wala kc silang ALAM bago paman magabogado she must OBEY THE TRO first SHE SHOULD BE CHARGED FOR CONTEMPT for disrespecting the HIGHEST COURT IN LAND

      1. markpere2010 says:

        I agree that De Lima can be cited for contempt for defying the Supreme Court. However, iwasan po natin ang paggamit ng foul language.

      2. Rog says:

        ANONYMOUS, You must be a MORON who does not have the word “decency” in your vocabulary!

  5. Anonymous says:

    Personally, it’s politics……. now it’s proven that the aquino government is just focused on how they can pin down the Arroyos family specially the former president and considering that the former president is very ill.

    1. markpere2010 says:

      But you know, in doing so, they can’t afford to do things haphazardly. It’s too embarassing.

  6. J says:

    Just wanna share this comment lifted from Ms. Robles’ commenters:

    Johnny lin says:
    November 16, 2011 at 2:52 am
    President Truman said, “the buck stops here”.
    Under Philippine Constitution, there are 3 separate branches of government. The Legislative create laws, The Executive signs or vetoes the laws. The Judiciary or Supreme Court give the final Orders but the Executive implements them. the Constitution also guarantees individual freedom or rights including travel.

    Unfortunately the case Is against the Executive branch by individual plaintiffs, the Arroyos.

    The Supreme Court is wrong two ways under it’s own rule.
    1. It has a standing rule of Motion for Reconsideration in all it’s Orders which should not be on TRO.
    2. It scheduled an oral argument on Nov 22, then issued a TRO. It should have not done so.

    Executive issued WLO and HDO. Since the Executive implements Judiciary Order, it is within it’s right not to follow because of Supreme Court rules above, Executive right to veto. When all Executive legal rights have been exhausted and the Supreme Court ruled in finality without any MR anymore, then the Executive has no recourse except to implement SC order.That’s Constitutional Way! Even Midas Marquez could not contest these facts.

    While waiting, the Executive could file plunder and electoral sabotage against Arroyos, then SC TRO become irrelevant. Their strategy is working legally and cinstitutionally.
    Pnoy and De Lima are in a win win situation, however we look at it. Mabuhay Tuwid Pilipinas!

    http://raissarobles.com/2011/11/15/read-supreme-courts-tro-allowing-gloria-arroyo-to-travel/

    1. markpere2010 says:

      Thank you very much for sharing this lengthy comment. Let us wait and see if the outlined scenario does play out.

  7. Cattleya Bagalanon Acaylar says:

    Although GMA is an evil, she should not be denied due process. No less than our Constitution protects the individual’s right to travel. The right to travel is impaired only for the interest of 1) national security 2) public safety or 3) public health, 4) as may be provided by law , such as when a person is out on bail, or during the pendency of a case. In what way will Arroyo’s travel be a threat to national security, public safety or public health? It is not within the jurisdiction of the DOJ to issue a hold departure order because it is clear on the Constitution- the right to travel shall not be impaired except upon a lawful order of the court- so for me, DOJ Circular 41 should be stricken down as unconstitutional for allowing the DOJ to prevent the exit of GMA.

    1. markpere2010 says:

      Hi, Cattleya. Thanks for subscribing to my blog. The DOJ erred big time in defying the Supreme Court. And GMA, too, erred in allowing ex Sec. Alberto Agra to issue Circular 41. even though the issue is already moot, I hope the SC will still rule on the circular’s legality.

      1. Cattleya Bagalanon Acaylar says:

        I find your blog really interesting. 😉 The SC surely will– to educate the bench.

      2. markpere2010 says:

        Salamat talaga! Readers like you inspire me to write more. 🙂

  8. Anonymous says:

    Lest you forget that Leila de Lima is reportedly a sister of Julie, the wife of Jose Maria Sison of the Communist Party of the Philippines….. Now, you wonder why?

    1. markpere2010 says:

      A graduate school professor mentioned that in our class but I’m yet to verify it.

  9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJZRi_x2xE0 says:

    Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate you writing
    this write-up and also the rest of the website is also really good.

  10. mexico SEOVEINTE says:

    I got this web page from my pal who told me regarding this website and at the moment
    this time I am visiting this site and reading very informative articles here.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: