not “deemed resigned” when they run for public office.
107
The mischief sought to
be avoided by the “resign to run” rule – namely the candidate’s use of his position
to “wield a dangerous or coercive influence” on the election and, conversely, the
pernicious “sway [of] political considerations” in the officer’s discharge of his
official duties – applied to all officials, appointed and elected alike. Within three
months, the court reversed itself, saying that the constitutional norm of the political
neutrality of the civil service should prevail.^108
Aborted impeachment of the Arroyo-era ombudsman
The next showdown between Aquino and the Arroyo loyalists in the court was over
the impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, another Arroyo loyalist.
Initially the court flexed its muscles and temporarily stopped it,^109 but, faced with
the popularity of the new president, Gutierrez subsequently resigned.
Battle over the watchlist order
The tipping point, however, was the role of the Supreme Court in almost enabling
former president Arroyo to leave the country in November 2011 and just as surely
evade justice. Arroyo had been under investigation for corruption, human rights
violations, and election sabotage. When the indictments were about to be filed,
Arroyo and her husband attempted to leave the Philippines.
Arroyo cited her “urgent” and “life-threatening” medical condition,
110
requiringforeign medical treatment in countries that, significantly, were all non-extradition
states. The Department of Justice had issued several watchlist orders against the
Arroyos that alerted immigration authorities should they try to leave the country.
Arroyo impugned the department secretary’s power to issue these orders^111 as a viola-
tion of her constitutional right to travel.^112 Ironically, that authority was created under
Arroyo and used against her political enemies. The Supreme Court issued an order
temporarily lifting the watchlist order.^113 That restraining order would subsequently be
included in the articles of impeachment against Chief Justice Corona.^114
Former president Arroyo immediately went to the airport to leave but the
secretary of justice barred her departure, initially citing procedural grounds (e.g.
that she had not been served yet with a copy of the court’s order) and later
(^107) Quintov.Commission on Elections, G.R. No 189698 (December 1 , 2009 ).
(^108) Quintov.Commission on Elections, G.R. No 189698 (February 22 , 2010 ).
(^109) Gutierrezv.House of Representatives Committee on Justice, G.R. No 193459 (February 15 ,
2011 ).
(^110) Macapagal-Arroyov.De Lima, G.R. No 199034 (November 15 , 2011 ) (Reyes J dissenting).
(^111) Department of Justice Circular No 41 (Consolidated Rules and Regulations Governing the
Issuances and Implementing of Hold Departure Orders, Watchlist Orders, and Allow
Departure Orders) (June 7 , 2010 ).
(^112) Const. Art.iii§ 6. (^113) Macapagal-Arroyov.De Lima.
(^114) Articles of Impeachment, Art.vii,In re Impeachment of Chief Justice Corona(December 12 ,
2011 ).