|Supreme Court spokesman Jose Midas Marquez
MANILA, Philippines - Twitterworld still can’t get over the video of Court Administrator and Supreme Court spokesman Jose Midas Marquez that went viral after he let out a shriek, prompting some to question his sexuality.
That moment became a breather of sorts amid a discussion-filled week on the arrest of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, catapulting his name alongside that of the ex-leader in the Twitter trending list.
Marquez usually holds a press conference in the multi-purpose hall at the ground floor of the SC building in Padre Faura. Microphones from the different television networks and voice recorders are placed on top of a podium which he uses.
That fateful day, an expensive-looking slim microphone was bumped off the podium, prompting Marquez, with eyes bulging, to cover his mouth with one hand and give a shriek colegiala-like.
Minutes after the live press conference, a splice of a video of his unguarded moment was posted all over the Internet.
Comments from Internet users ranged from serious to funny, albeit malicious.
Asked for comment on his new-found popularity in the Internet, the father of 2 and art enthusiast said: “Wishful thinking for those who are rooting for it.”
In another press conference today, Marquez poked fun at himself and asked reporters if they had more questions “bago mahulog ‘yung mic.”
Earlier in the day, he even mulled having all the microphones tied to the podium so they would not fall off.
This is not the first time that Marquez faced controversy in connection with the Arroyo brouhaha. The issue has highlighted further the divide between the executive and the judiciary, with both quarters getting a share of critics and supporters.
Two weeks ago, Marquez announced the high court’s rejection of a motion for reconsideration on the temporary restraining order (TRO) on the travel restraint against Arroyo. He said the TRO order, originally issued on November 15, remained in full force.
Associate Justice Lourdes Sereno later chided him in her dissent. “Contrary to this interpretation, as stated, it was the understanding of a majority that the TRO is ‘suspended pending compliance’ with our earlier resolution. The operational ineffectivity of the TRO is implied—for it is a basic principle that the failure of petitioners to comply with one of the conditions in the resolution dated Nov. 15, 2011 is a jurisdictional defect that suspends, at the least, the effectivity of the TRO.”
The high court today clarified its decision on the matter, saying it did not suspend the implementation of the TRO.
Asked if it was a vindication, Marquez said: “Perhaps it was just a clarification on the part of the Supreme Court because there was confusion on the matter earlier.”