Maliksi rival to question CJ Sereno’s TRO

MANILA, Philippines – The camp of former Imus Mayor Homer Saquilayan said on Monday, October 15, they will move to have the temporary restraining order issued by Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno in favor of his rival nullified.

On October 12, Sereno used her sole authority to issue a TRO — sought by Saquilayan’s political opponent Emmanuel Maliksi.  

Perfecto Mercado, Saquilayan’s lawyer, said they will file a motion to quash the TRO, which they said, was irregularly issued.   

It was the first time that Sereno exercised this authority.

He said the SC en banc has taken up Maliksi’s petition for a TRO on October 2, but they did not grant it and instead only asked that both parties file their respective comments no later than October 19. Maliksi has also filed a manifestation reiterating his plea, but the SC only noted this.

Hence, he said, he cannot understand why Sereno decided to act on the petition. In issuing the TRO, Sereno stopped the Commission on Elections (Comelec) from enforcing its August resolution removing Maliksi as mayor of Imus. 

The Comelec’s first division declared Maliksi’s rival, Homer Saquilayan, as the winner of the 2010 polls for the mayoral position in Imus, Cavite. It reversed a lower court decision that installed Maliksi to the post after he filed an election protest.

Maliksi is an ally of President Benigno Aquino III in the Liberal Party. Aquino appointed Sereno as associate justice in 2010 and named her chief justice last August 24.

‘Abnormal’

Lawyer Ferdinand Topacio said what Sereno did was “abnormal” even if it is well within the powers of the chief justice to isssue a TRO on his or her own. 

Rule 58, Section 5 of the rules of Court says, “if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the executive judge of a multiple-sala court or the presiding judge of a single-sala court may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order.”

Topacio said the chief justice should use this authority only under “extraordinay circumstances” such as when the High Court is on break, when the petition seeks remedies like the writs of amparo and habeas corpus, or when the petition covers life-or-death situations. 

He also chastised Sereno for not exercising this power on the petitions filed against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, consequently allowing the law to take effect on October 3. 

Topacio added that Sereno could have easily called for a special session to tackle Maliksi’s petition. “What is the logic why the TRO power is issued sparingly? Because the Court is a collegial court. They [justices] do not act on their own,” he said. 

Saquilayan said he has to question the TRO issuance because it sends the message that the Court is the “last recourse of those who want to remain in power.”

The SC en banc will have to decide on Tuesday, October 16, if it will confrm or withdraw the TRO issued by Sereno. – Rappler.com