Article VII of the Impeachment

RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH HIS PARTIALITY IN

GRANTING A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) IN FAVOR OF FORMER
PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO AND HER HUSBAND JOSE MIGUEL
ARROYO IN ORDER TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESCAPE PROSECUTION AND
TO FRUSTRATE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, AND IN DISTORTING THE SUPREME COURT
DECISION ON THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE TRO IN VIEW OF A CLEAR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THE SUPREME COURTS OWN TRO.

The Supreme Court, under the Chief Justice, inexplicably consolidated the separate petitions filed
by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband Miguel Arroyo in order to question the
validity of the Watch List Orders issued against them by the Department of Justice pursuant to DOJ
Circular No. 41 ironically issued by the DOJ under Arroyos administration. By consolidating the
petitions, the Supreme Court under Respondent unduly gave Miguel Arroyo an unwarranted benefit since
the alleged urgent health needs of President Arroyo would now be extended to him.
The Supreme Court, under the Chief Justice immediately acted upon the Petition and granted the
TRO despite the fact that there is a lack of compliance on the requisites before a TRO can be issued and
the blatant disregard of the Supreme Courts own procedures. In view of certain objections against the
grant of a TRO, a holding of a hearing with the period of 5 days was recommended. The Chief Justice
nevertheless engineered a majority of eight votes for the immediate grant and issue of the TRO in favour
of the Arroyos. It also appears that Chief Justice and the former President Arroyo were coordinating their
actions when the latter booked tickets on the same day expecting that they can leave the country on the
very same day their plea for a TRO was to be decided. The Arroyos also failed to comply with an
essential requisite for the granting of TRO which is The petitioners shall appoint a legal representative
common to both of them who will receive subpoena, orders, and other legal processes on their behalf
during their absence. Despite this defect and the subsequent voting of the High Court that there is indeed
failure of compliance with the pre-condition, they also decided not to clearly explain the legal effect of
such non compliance regarding the said TRO. Such lack of explanation and the erroneous public
announcement of Supreme Court spokesman Midas Marquez declaring the TRO to be effective despite
the non-compliance mislead the public to believe that the Supreme Court has granted the Arroyos the
right to leave the country. The failure of the Chief Justice to chastise Midas Marquez clearly shows bias
and a partisan stance in favour of the Arroyos. Respondents action of causing a false message and
twisting the sense and understanding of the Court during its deliberations on this matter, betray not only
his lack of independence, competence and probity, but more importantly, the moral fibre to dispense
justice as he would allow a frustration of justice for the Filipino People for personal gain and commitment
to his midnight benefactor. Worst of all, despite the finding that the Arroyos failed to comply with an
essential condition of the TRO, the Supreme Court, headed by Respondent Corona in a 9-4 vote, ruled
that the TRO was in effect