HERE WE GO AGAIN: The arrest of Former President Gloria Macagapal Arroyo
Philippines
Column
PDF (100KB)
>> in Japanese
Philippine
media,
both
mainstream
and
alternative,
is
once
more
in
a
frenzy.
A
quick
glance
of
the
front
page
of
the
major
dailies,
the
homepage
of
the
websites
of
broadcast
station,
the
tweeter
feeds
and
status
updates
of
friends
who
observe
Philippine
politics,
would
readily
reveal
that
the
watch
is
on,
the
case
of
former
President
Gloria
Macapagal
Arroyo.
It
is
not
my
purpose
here
to
extensively
discuss
the
details
of
what
has
been
described
as
the
downfall
of
the
longest
serving
Philippine
president
after
the
political
transition
in
19862.
Suffice
it
to
say
that
among
the
many
sins3
leveled
against
former
President
Arroyo,
she
has
been
charged
with
electoral
sabotage
by
the
Commission
on
Elections
(COMELEC)
for
ordering
the
manipulation
of
election
results
in
a
province
in
the
Philippines
during
the
2007
elections.
The
case
was
filed
by
the
COMELEC
last
Friday
based
on
the
findings
of
a
Joint
Task
Force
constituted
by
the
COMELEC
with
the
Department
of
Justice
(DOJ).4
In
the
2007
election,
former
President
Arroyo
was
alleged
to
have
ordered
the
provincial
governor,
Andal
Ampatuan
Sr.,
to
secure
that
three
candidates
from
the
opposition
will
get
zero
votes—Benigno
S.
Aquino
III,
Panfilo
Lacson,
and
Allan
Peter
Cayetano.
The
delayed
canvass
sheet
from
the
province
eventually
showed
the
administration
slate
sweeping
the
top
12
slots
for
the
Senatorial
race
in
the
province
of
Mindanao.
From
her
arrest,
the
former
President’s
mugshot
has
circulated
in
cyberspace.
In
a
slightly
different
version,
the
caption
that
accompanies
her
mugshot
in
the
Philippine
Daily
Inquirer
November
21,
2011
web
issue,
tells
all
about
the
questions
we
must
venture
to
answer
given
all
the
events
that
has
transpired
in
the
past
week
and
which
will
occur
in
the
weeks
and
months
ahead—Vanquished?
To
this
question,
we
add,
has
the
former
president
really
been
defeated?
In
the
end,
what
would
incarcerating
her
mean
for
Filipinos?
Would
it
result
in
any
dramatic
change
in
the
way
politics
has
played
out
in
a
country
that
has
been
saddled
with
feeble
institutions?
Just
a
week
ago,
on
the
15th
of
November,
the
former
President,
along
with
her
husband
and
their
supporters,
hailed
a
decision
of
the
Supreme
Court
that
restrained
the
enforcement
of
a
Watchlist
Order
(WLO)
that
prevented
her
from
traveling
abroad.
Soon
after
the
decision
was
announced,
the
Arroyo
family
frantically
booked
flights
to
leave
the
Philippines
on
the
same
day
and
comply
with
the
three
conditions5
set
forth
by
the
majority
of
the
Supreme
Court.
Unfortunately,
they
were
blocked
by
government
authorities,
or
more
precisely
offloaded,
given
that
the
Executive
department
stood
path
on
its
WLO.
Four
days
after
the
Temporary
Restraining
Order
was
issued,
the
former
President
was
served
a
warrant
of
arrest
on
charges
mentioned
earlier.
The
day
after,
presumably
lying
on
her
hospital
bed
that
has
been
tilted
for
a
photo
shoot,
the
mugshots
were
taken.
If
these
events
alone
were
a
boxing
match,
the
government
and
the
former
president
are
tied
at
one
round
apiece
and
the
match
continues,
the
duration
of
which
is
unknown,
and
more
importantly,
the
outcome
uncertain.
There
are
things
about
Philippine
politics
that
are
being
tried
alongside
the
former
president
and
this
not
the
first
time
that
these
are
put
to
a
test.
The
first
test
would
be
on
the
rule
of
law
measure.
Has
the
rule
of
law
been
subverted
by
the
decision
of
the
Supreme
Court;
in
the
process
that
led
to
the
filing
of
a
case
of
electoral
sabotage
against
the
former
President;
and,
finally,
in
the
issuance
of
the
warrant
of
arrest
against
her?
Was
the
Philippine
media,
both
mainstream
and
alternative,
is
once
more
in
a
frenzy.
A
quick
glance
of
the
front
page
of
the
major
dailies,
the
homepage
of
the
websites
of
broadcast
station,
the
tweeter
feeds
and
status
updates
of
friends
who
observe
Philippine
politics,
would
readily
reveal
that
the
watch
is
on,
the
case
of
former
President
Gloria
Macapagal
Arroyo.
It
is
not
my
purpose
here
to
extensively
discuss
the
details
of
what
has
been
described
as
the
downfall
of
the
longest
serving
Philippine
president
after
the
political
transition
in
19862.
Suffice
it
to
say
that
among
the
many
sins3
leveled
against
former
President
Arroyo,
she
has
been
charged
with
electoral
sabotage
by
the
Commission
on
Elections
(COMELEC)
for
ordering
the
manipulation
of
election
results
in
a
province
in
the
Philippines
during
the
2007
elections.
The
case
was
filed
by
the
COMELEC
last
Friday
based
on
the
findings
of
a
Joint
Task
Force
constituted
by
the
COMELEC
with
the
Department
of
Justice
(DOJ).4
In
the
2007
election,
former
President
Arroyo
was
alleged
to
have
ordered
the
provincial
governor,
Andal
Ampatuan
Sr.,
to
secure
that
three
candidates
from
the
opposition
will
get
zero
votes—Benigno
S.
Aquino
III,
Panfilo
Lacson,
and
Allan
Peter
Cayetano.
The
delayed
canvass
sheet
from
the
province
eventually
showed
the
administration
slate
sweeping
the
top
12
slots
for
the
Senatorial
race
in
the
province
of
Mindanao.
From
her
arrest,
the
former
President’s
mugshot
has
circulated
in
cyberspace.
In
a
slightly
different
version,
the
caption
that
accompanies
her
mugshot
in
the
Philippine
Daily
Inquirer
November
21,
2011
web
issue,
tells
all
about
the
questions
we
must
venture
to
answer
given
all
the
events
that
has
transpired
in
the
past
week
and
which
will
occur
in
the
weeks
and
months
ahead—Vanquished?
To
this
question,
we
add,
has
the
former
president
really
been
defeated?
In
the
end,
what
would
incarcerating
her
mean
for
Filipinos?
Would
it
result
in
any
dramatic
change
in
the
way
politics
has
played
out
in
a
country
that
has
been
saddled
with
feeble
institutions?
Just
a
week
ago,
on
the
15th
of
November,
the
former
President,
along
with
her
husband
and
their
supporters,
hailed
a
decision
of
the
Supreme
Court
that
restrained
the
enforcement
of
a
Watchlist
Order
(WLO)
that
prevented
her
from
traveling
abroad.
Soon
after
the
decision
was
announced,
the
Arroyo
family
frantically
booked
flights
to
leave
the
Philippines
on
the
same
day
and
comply
with
the
three
conditions5
set
forth
by
the
majority
of
the
Supreme
Court.
Unfortunately,
they
were
blocked
by
government
authorities,
or
more
precisely
offloaded,
given
that
the
Executive
department
stood
path
on
its
WLO.
Four
days
after
the
Temporary
Restraining
Order
was
issued,
the
former
President
was
served
a
warrant
of
arrest
on
charges
mentioned
earlier.
The
day
after,
presumably
lying
on
her
hospital
bed
that
has
been
tilted
for
a
photo
shoot,
the
mugshots
were
taken.
If
these
events
alone
were
a
boxing
match,
the
government
and
the
former
president
are
tied
at
one
round
apiece
and
the
match
continues,
the
duration
of
which
is
unknown,
and
more
importantly,
the
outcome
uncertain.
There
are
things
about
Philippine
politics
that
are
being
tried
alongside
the
former
president
and
this
not
the
first
time
that
these
are
put
to
a
test.
The
first
test
would
be
on
the
rule
of
law
measure.
Has
the
rule
of
law
been
subverted
by
the
decision
of
the
Supreme
Court;
in
the
process
that
led
to
the
filing
of
a
case
of
electoral
sabotage
against
the
former
President;
and,
finally,
in
the
issuance
of
the
warrant
of
arrest
against
her?
Was
the
Department
of
Justice
Secretary
not
only
intransigent
but
also
crossed
the
line
that
had
the
potential
of
bringing
forth
a
constitutional
crisis
where
the
Executive
openly
defies
a
legitimate
order
from
a
co-equal
institution?
(See
Box
1.
Whose
rule
of
law?)
Have
all
the
processes
and
decisions
that
are
material
to
this
case
been
colored
by
personal
judgments,
partisanship
and
carried
out
in
whimsical
fashion?
Box. 1. Whose rule of law? There are conflicting views on whether the Supreme Court (SC) majority treaded beyond what is established by law and favored the former president with a TRO given that they were appointees of former President Arroyo. The most salient view is espoused by the dissenters, three Associate Justices whose common argument is that the government has the limited power to abridge the right to travel and recognizing this, the Court should not issue the TRO until after the government had presented its case before the Court. A number of commentators have resurrected their criticism of the court as being highly politicized, favoring the person that appointed them. For her part, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima refused to obey the TRO believing that the decision was not final inasmuch as government had yet to present its arguments before the Supreme Court. Secretary de Lima supported such assertion by citing, though not directly, the views of the minority in the SC decision, neglecting that under the rule of law, a majority decision should be executory. When the government filed its motion to appeal the TRO on November 16, the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court to require the government to explain why they should not be cited for contempt is a clear assertion of the Supreme Court that regardless of the divergent opinion on the TRO, the Executive must be told clearly that the high court would require, at the very least, respect from their co-equal branch.
Though it is sweeping to judge whether the rule of law had been violated as the so called “wheels of justice” continue to grind, one could not draw confidence from the perception that the Philippines has slid on this dimension of governance across the last 12 years, based on the indicators consolidated annually by the World Bank. Employed as a criterion that captures “perceptions of the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, property rights, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence.” (emphasis mine)
Rule of Law (2010)

Related
to
a
rule
of
law
is
the
subsequent
end
of
justice.
Already,
the
opponents
of
Arroyo
have
hailed
the
issuance
of
the
warrant
of
arrest
as
a
triumph
of
justice.
This
is
partially
true,
specifically
if
we
acknowledge
that
it
has
been
six
years
since
Arroyo
was
alleged
to
have
orchestrated
the
first
“electoral
sabotage”
in
the
2004
elections
and
it
has
been
17
months
since
the
Aquino
administration
has
been
in
the
position
before
a
formal
case
has
been
filed
against
former
President
Arroyo.
But
what
is
being
celebrated
is
but
a
procedural
dimension
of
justice,
indicating
how
shallow
some
people’s
happiness
(in
Filipinomababaw
ng
kaligayahan)
is,
a
superficiality
that
may
also
mirror
the
belief
that
nothing
else
might
come
out
of
this
new
episode—a
prosecution
without
a
conviction.
The
Arroyo
case
would
also
be
a
critical
test
of
the
capacity
of
President
Aquino
to
fulfill
a
promise,
to
secure
the
accountability
of
those
who
have
robbed
the
country
of
its
wealth
and
weakened
its
political
institutions.
In
his
last
State
of
the
Nation
Address,
President
Aquino
was
clear
about
his
resolve
when
he
said
that,
“some
of
my
critics
say
that
I
take
this
campaign
against
corruption
personally.
It’s
true:
doing
what’s
right
is
personal.
Making
people
more
accountable—whoever
they
may
be—is
personal.
It
should
be
personal
for
all
of
us,
because
we
have
all
been
victimized
by
corruption.”
While
I
take
my
hat
off
to
the
President
for
the
continuous
declaration
of
this
resolve,
he
should
learn
from
our
history
and
be
much
more
discerning
of
the
politics
that
lies
ahead
and
beneath
in
securing
a
conviction.
As
I
write
this
article,
the
Supreme
Court
will
start
to
hear
the
oral
arguments
on
the
consolidated
cases
filed
by
the
Arroyos
against
the
WLO
of
the
Department
of
Justice.
Given
the
warrant
of
arrest
issued
against
the
former
president,
the
case
may
have
been
rendered
partially
moot.
What
is
even
more
startling
is
that
the
Department
of
Justice
decided
to
omit
from
the
WLO
the
name
of
the
former
First
Gentleman
Jose
Miguel
Arroyo.
With
this
decision,
however,
it
is
still
necessary
for
the
Supreme
Court
to
rule
on
the
substantive
issues
that
the
Arroyo
petitions
surfaced,
directly
and
consequentially,
the
power
of
the
government
to
maintain
order
by
way
of
the
exercise
of
its
limited
power
to
abridge
the
right
to
travel
and
whether
the
Executive
has
defied
a
legitimate,
albeit
controversial,
order
from
the
High
Court.
The
latter
should
be
decided
after
the
High
Court
receives
the
explanation
from
the
Justice
Secretary
as
to
why
she
should
not
be
held
in
contempt.
Will
the
High
Court
assert
its
authority
or
will
it
straddle
gingerly
as
it
has
done
in
the
past
to
stave
off
another
escalating
clash
with
the
incumbent
Chief
Executive?
For
all
that
it
is
worth,
we
have
seen
this
drama
before.
Of
presidents
that
were
deposed
in
conditions
that
were
much
more
humiliating.
Former
President
Arroyo
should
be
thankful
rather
than
depressed.
Unlike
many
Filipinos,
she
has
the
resources
to
defend
herself
and
secure
her
physical
and
psychological
welfare.
In
the
legal
front,
she
is
ably
represented
by
her
lawyers,
with
a
couple
having
been
lawyers
of
the
predecessor
that
she
prosecuted.
She
may
have
been
offloaded
the
night
that
they
tried
to
dash
away,
but
she
remains
in
an
exclusive
hospital.
The
trial
court
for
her
electoral
sabotage
case
has
agreed
to
keep
her
in
the
confines
of
her
expensive
hospital
suite.
She
should
even
be
more
grateful
that
she
was
accorded
the
respect
that
is
supposed
to
befit
a
former
president
by
her
successor.
Interestingly,
the
“respectful”
treatment
was
not
bestowed
by
her
successor
on
the
dead
deposed
dictator,
Ferdinand
Marcos,
when
President
Aquino
rejected
renewed
calls
to
bury
Marcos
at
the
cemetery
for
heroes.
Even
when
she
was
not
being
allowed
to
leave
the
country
earlier,
President
Aquino
offered
to
her
that
the
government
would
bring
in
a
specialist
to
examine
her
condition
at
the
people’s
expense.
With
several
witnesses
arrayed
against
her
in
an
electoral
sabotage
case
that
has
already
prompted
the
resignation
of
a
Senator
that
benefited
from
the
manipulated
outcomes,
former
President
Arroyo
should
really
be
thankful.
She
is
getting
a
taste
of
President
Aquino’s
personal
touch
in
the
campaign
against
corruption.
She
may
feel
persecuted
and
is
bound
to
be
prosecuted
but
she
could
take
comfort
in
the
fact
that
conviction,
for
the
high
and
mighty,
is
undeniably
far
more
difficult
to
ascertain
in
the
Philippines.
Here
we
go
again.
- Ronald D. Holmes is a Visiting Research Fellow of the Institute from September 2011 to March 2012. The views expressed do not reflect nor represent the Institute nor any of the Philippine organizations he is affiliated with.
- For a fairly recent account of the timeline that led to the filing of charges against Mrs. Arroyo, refer to Raissa Robles’ “Gloria Arroyo’s downfall actually started in July” at http://raissarobles.com/2011/11/21/gloria-arroyos-downfall-actually-started-in-july/
- From 2005, when a taped that had then President Arroyo talking with a Commissioner of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) was leaked, a conversation where Mrs. Arroyo was said to have ordered this official to secure a comfortable margin between her and the primary contender in the 2004 presidential elections, the late movie actor, Fernando Poe, Jr., several “sins” have allegedly been committed by former President Arroyo and her cohorts. This include misusing funds allocated to provide material assistance to farmers (the Fertilizer Fund Scam) for the conduct of her campaign for the 2004 elections; profiteering from a billion dollar broadband contract with the Chinese firm ZTE; the unexplained wealth of her family, specifically a purported bank account with US$ 200 million under the name of Jose Pidal that was allegedly the pseudonym of her husband, Atty. Jose Miguel Arroyo; and, the surge of involuntary disappearances and human rights violations, among others.
- The former President’s husband, Atty. Jose Miguel Arroyo, filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the Joint Panel of the COMELEC and the DOJ that conducted the preliminary investigation on the alleged fraud committed by former President Arroyo and other officials in the 2007 elections. In its hearing of November 22, 2011, the Supreme Court decided to hear the arguments on the petition that included an appeal to nullify the arrest order against former President Arroyo.
-
These
conditions
were:
The
petitioners
(Gloria
and
Jose
Miguel
Arroyo)
shall
post
a
cash
bond
of
Two
Million
Pesos
(P2,000,000.00)
payable
to
the
Supreme
Court
;
appoint
a
legal
representative
common
to
both
of
them
who
will
receive
subpoena, orders and other legal processes on their behalf during their absence; and, If there is a Philippine embassy or consulate in the place where
they will be traveling, the petitioners shall inform said embassy or consulate
by personal appearance or by phone of their whereabouts at all times. See the Supreme Court decision at http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/resolutions/2011/november2011/199034_199046_TRO.pdf