Justice Sereno’s dissenting opinion

A day after the high court issued the TRO lifting the travel ban on the former First Couple, Supreme Court Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno filed her dissenting opinion to the ruling because former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo allegedly made “inconsistent, and probably untruthful statements," about her plans to go abroad for medical treatment. President Benigno Aquino III’s first SC appointee questioned the majority’s issuance of the TRO by citing four issues. Sereno first called attention to the “very stringent rules in issuing a TRO," particularly on getting the application “verified." She pointed out in her dissent that the high court has strict regulations concerning its employees’ right to travel. She then asked, “Why is the majority not even willing to hear the government before issuing the TRO, when, in the supervision of its judiciary employees, a mere administrative officer of the Supreme Court, and not a judicial officer, may deny the right to travel?" Second, Sereno said Mrs. Arroyo had presented to the SC “inconsistent, and probably untruthful statements." Her dissenting opinion cited documents submitted by Arroyo's doctors belying her claims of threat to life. She also noted that the list of countries the former President had wanted to visit kept on changing, adding that Arroyo had even planned participating in two conferences abroad. “It seems incongruous for petitioner who has asked the Department of Justice and this Court to look with humanitarian concern on her precarious state of health, to commit herself to attend these meetings and conferences at the risk of worsening her physical condition," Sereno said. Third, the dissenting Justice said “an explanation from [Arroyo] must be heard on oral argument" as to why the Representative of the Second District of Pampanga was questioning the constitutionality of an administrative order that she herself had issued when she was President. Lastly, Sereno in her dissent stressed that the high court should hear the side of government before allowing the Arroyos to leave the country – just in case the former First Couple did not return, because the Philippines “has not had much success in waging international campaigns to recover the Marcos ill-gotten wealth or effect the arrest of many criminal escapees." Sereno said while Mrs. Arroyo’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, “[t]his does not mean, however, that the State should be deprived of the opportunity to be heard on the question of whether it has certain rights that must be protected vis-a-vis persons under investigation during a preliminary investigation." — MRT, GMA News