TRO, not SQA order, issued vs. new Comelec airtime limits, SC clarifies

(Updated 3:46 p.m.) The Supreme Court on Thursday clarified that it issued a temporary restraining order (TRO)—and not a status quo ante order as its spokesman previously said— on the Commission on Elections' (Comelec) new airtime limits on political advertisements. Both a TRO and an SQA order, however, have the same effect. On Tuesday, SC Public Information Chief and spokesman Teddy Te told reporters in Baguio City, where the 15 magistrates were holding summer sessions, that the SC had issued an SQA order stopping the Comelec from implementing Resolution 9615, amended by Resolution 9631, which set an aggregate airtime limits on television and radio political advertisements of candidates for next month's midterm elections. Te apologized for the confusion. "I was told of the order and that the status quo as of 2010 was to be observed. I assumed, wrongly, that the SC was issuing a SQAO," he said in a statement. He added it was "certainly beyond my control" that the high tribunal later issued a TRO. "I apologize for the confusion and the error; the mistake is mine," he said. The SQA order announcement came as a surprise since the request from the petitioners, which included GMA Network, was for the issuance of a TRO. On Thursday, however, the SC came out with "SC-PIO-Update-0002," which quoted portions of the resolution that revealed a TRO and not an SQA was issued. “By a vote of 9-6 and after deliberation on the issues and the different opinions submitted pertinent to the consolidated petitions, the Court has decided to issue a Temporary Restraining Order in view of the urgency involved and to prevent irreparable injury that may be caused to the petitioners if respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) is not  enjoined from implementing its  so-called  'aggregate time' contained in its  Resolution No. 9615," the SC said.     “Accordingly, let a Temporary Restraining Order issue enjoining respondent  COMELEC from implementing Resolution No. 9615, amended by Resolution No. 9631, otherwise known as the “aggregate time limit” rule," the court added. As a consequence, the high tribunal ordered the Comelec to observe the previous airtime rule that allows 120 minutes/180 minutes per station, for national candidates or registered political parties "pending resolution of the consolidated cases by the Court." “The previous rule on local candidates that allows 60 minutes/90 minutes airtime limit per station should also be observed," the high court said. Right after the en banc session, Te refused to differentiate a TRO from an SQA, saying he had yet to read the entire resolution on the airtime limits petitions. On Thursday, however, he explained to reporters that he "was told it was an SQA order." "That the actual resolution later refers to it as TRO is something beyond my control," Te added. The court spokesman also emphasized that when he made the announcement last Tuesday, "I prefaced my comments that I didn't have the exact text nor resolution and that what I announced was what I was authorized to announce." A status quo ante order comes from the Latin phrase "the way things were before," and directs parties in a case to observe the status or situation before the implementation of a contested ruling, policy, or decision. Difference Asked to differentiate an SQA order and a TRO, a court insider told GMA News Online that the former is issued when the act sought to be restrained has already been done. An SQA, therefore, "undoes" an act and brings back the original situation. A TRO meanwhile prevents an impending act to be done, the source said. Apart from GMA Network, other petitioners were ABC Development Corp; Manila Broadcasting Co and Newsounds Broadcasting Network Inc; Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas and ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp; and Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano. Under the assailed Comelec resolution issued in January, which was amended through the February resolution, the Comelec set the following guidelines:

• For all national candidates, 120 minutes on all TV networks and 180 minutes on all radio stations
• For all local candidates, 60 minutes in all TV networks and 90 minutes in all radio stations.

In its petition filed last February 8, GMA Network described the airtime limits on political ads as "too restrictive." "We raised that the aggregate airtime for political advertisements is restrictive considering that it impinges on the right to suffarge and the right of the people to be informed on important matters and the right of the people to free speech and expression," said one of the network's lawyers, Maria Estelita Arles, in the petition. SC-PIO mix-up The mix up came less than two weeks after the SC PIO erred in relaying to the media an en banc decision that ruled, among others, that a group need not be "marginalized or underrepresented" to participate in the party-list polls. Te told reporters that one of the six new parameters that the high court set for party-list group accreditation was that a group cannot be disqualified if some of their nominees had been disqualified, so long as at least five nominees are qualified. As it turned out, the SC resolution said that only one other qualified nominee, and not five, is needed so that a group with a disqualified nominee  would remain in the race. "The error is mine, purely inadvertent and brought about by the need to finish the summaries to aid in reporting. My apologies," Te told reporters. The  spokesman also said his office tried correcting the press statement "minutes after it was sent out but was unable to do so because of technical problems." Even before Te took over the reigns at the SC PIO, there had been instances when the office had issued conflicting statements to the media. In October last year, then-PIO chief and spokesperson Ma. Victoria Gleoresty Guerra caused a stir when she announced to reporters via text that the SC would be coming out with a decision issuing a TRO on former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's arraignment before the Sandiganbayan on the P300-million plunder case against her. Guerra later corrected herself and said the TRO did not refer to Arroyo's arraignment but to a Sandiganbayan order dated October 3 ordering the arrest of Arroyo's co-accused in the case, Nilda Plaras, former head of the Commission on Audit’s Intelligence Fund Unit. Guerra then confirmed that only Plaras, and not Arroyo or the other accused in the case, was covered by the TRO. — KBK/HS, GMA News