|
By William B. Depasupil, Reporter
THE Court of Appeals (CA) has
sustained Malacañang’s order reinstating Rodriguez Mayor Pedro
Cuerpo to his post following an earlier order by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Rizal meting him a six-month suspension.
The CA’s fourth division, in a
10-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam, denied
the petition of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Rizal and Rizal Vice
Governor Frisco San Juan Jr. for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order (TRO) and/or a writ of preliminary injunction on
Malacañang’s stay order.
But the CA, at the same time,
also enjoined the Office of the President to resolve the appeal
within 30 days from the date of its submission for resolution,
pursuant to Executive Order (EO) No. 26.
EO 26 prescribes the procedures
and sanctions to ensure speedy disposition of administrative cases.
It is applicable to all “government agencies, including any
department, bureau, board, office, commission, authority or officer
of the national government authorized by law or executive order to
adjudicate cases,” unless otherwise provided by special laws.
Before asking for a TRO, the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Rizal also filed before the CA a
petition for certiorari, which still has to be resolved.
The petition for certiorari
assails the issuance of the stay order by Malacañang dated April
18, 2008, which reinstates Cuerpo, thereby lifting a six-month
suspension order earlier imposed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Rizal through Resolution No. 08-042.
It argued that Malacañang’s
order was in clear violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right
to due process of law. It also accused the Office of the President
of grave abuse of discretion and for being partial to Cuerpo.
The petitioner also claimed that
the province of Rizal “suffered and/or stands to suffer
irreparable injury” as a result of Cuerpo’s reinstatement to his
office as mayor. It added that Cuerpo is undeserving of the Office
of the President’s stay order because while he had sought the
Office of the President’s appellate jurisdiction, he also resorted
to force, stealth, violence, intimidation, disruption of operations
of the municipal government of Rodriguez and illegal seizure of the
office of the mayor.
But the CA, in denying the
petition, said that while it recognizes the petitioner’s
undeniable and ministerial duty to see to it that its judgment is
executed, “that alone does not justify the issuance of the sought
injunction.”
“This Court is convinced that
there is neither an urgency nor paramount necessity for its
issuance,” the resolution said.
It added that the “petitioner
did not sufficiently allege facts to support an urgent need to issue
a temporary restraining order to prevent any great or irreparable
injury that it might suffer; or that a preliminary injunction is of
paramount necessity so that its application should be resolved at
once.”
But at the same time, the CA also
noted that the terms and conditions of the Office of the
President’s stay order was not adequately laid out, saying that
said order was “vaguely couched as to when such appeal will be
resolved; whether such order was actually a resolution of the appeal
itself; or, worse, whether the pending appeal would be resolved at
all.”
“In the absence of a definite
period, under EO 18, within which the Office of the President should
resolve the appeal, this Court believes that Executive Order No. 26
applies,” it added.
--William B. Depasupil
|
