MANILA, Philippines - Former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo filed with the Supreme Court(SC) today her comment/opposition to the Very Urgent Manifestation and Motion filed by the Office of the Solicitor General(OSG) last November 9 which asked the high court to first hear the comments of Justice Secretary Leila De Lima and Immigration Commissioner Ricardo David, Jr. before any action is rendered on Mrs. Arroyo's plea for a temporary restraining order(TRO) on her inclusion in the immigration watch list upon orders of the Department of Justice(DOJ).
Mrs. Arroyo's 18-page opposition argued that an ex parte issuance of TRO is allowed under the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure where a "great or irreparable" injury may result to the applicant before the other party is accorded its opportunity to reply.
Mrs. Arroyo's application for a TRO is part of her 40-page petition filed last November 8 that seeks the nullification and setting aside of watch list orders(WLO) issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against her which effectively bar her from traveling abroad without prior permission from the Secretary of Justice.
Mrs. Arroyo claimed that the fact that she underwent 3 surgeries from July to August this year is "proof positive" that she is afflicted with a "serious disease" that requires continuing medical treatment.
"Petitioner GMA(Mrs. Arroyo) shall suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury if the enforcement and implementation of DOJ Department Circular No. 41 and the 3 assailed WLOs(watch list order) issued by the respondent DOJ Secretary against her pursuant to the said Department Circular are not restrained," the comment read.
Mrs. Arroyo also pointed out that by praying in their November 9 motion that the same be treated as an opposition to her application for the temporary relief, respondents De Lima and David were already given the opportunity to be heard.
She also stressed that there will be no prejudgment of her petition or reversal of the rule on the burden of proof should she be granted a TRO since "the purpose of a restraining order is merely to suspend proceedings" while the court determines whether an injunction should be granted.
"A restraining order, like a temporary injunction, is provisional in its nature and does not conclude a right, but is simply incidental to the main issue to be tried," the comment read.
Arroyo's comment further claimed her petition dated November 7, 2011 and supplemental petition dated November 13, 2011 established the essential requisites for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction.