Thursday, September 01, 2005

Supreme Court makes history

Today, the Supreme Court upheld the E-VAT Law as valid and constitutional. But it also maintained the temporary restraining order against its implementation to allow its oppositors to file a motion for reconsideration. Jojo Bunag must be scratching his head.

This is amazing. Justice Escolin and Justice Relova, esteemed retired Supreme Court justices who taught us remedial law in the Ateneo, never taught us that this could be possible. A law's application is suspended, in spite of the ruling that it is valid. And, the ground for the suspension is meant "to allow the filing of a motion for reconsideration"?

Got to get a copy of that case. I can sure have a lot of use for that. Tsk tsk tsk What these interesting times do to our laws...


Punzi said...

Naunahan mo ako pare... already did to entry but I will post tomorrow...

el che said...

But isn't it really not executory until the lapse of the period to file for a motion for recon? I guess what is odd is that they specifically stated that in the ruling (maybe because they had to rule on the duration of the TRO), but its effects are really not to be implemented until the period has lapsed.

I may be wrong. While I also had the privilege of listening to said esteemed minds, I am not exactly a "diligent" student, hehe.

marvin said...

El Che,

We have been taught that a TRO/preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy. The most important requisite before its issuance is the establishment of a "clear and unmistakeable right" on the part of the applicant for the TRO/preliminary injunction. If i is granted by a court, the grant is immediately executory. If it is denied, then denial is likewise immediately executor. Wala ng 15 day period.

Now, with the ruling that the EVAT law is valid and constitutional, it follows that there is no clear an unmistakeable right to the TRO/preliminary injunction that was established by the applicants. Eh bakit ngayon may hold out pa rin sa TRO/Injunction?

The law is valid, so why can't the BIR execute it? The TRO/preliminary injunction has no leg to stand on, as it were. But it is miraculously standing upright. Nanghahamon pa ng Motion for Reconsideration.

I think Cesar Purisima has the answer.

Blackhawk said...

I agree with Marvin. Cesar Purisima has the answer to why the SC decision turned out this way in contravention of legal precendent.
Is it a coincidence that Joey Salceda is now filing a resolution calling on Congress to suspend implementatin of the EVAT on oil and power?
I think not.
It looks suspiciously like the stage is being set for a further delay in the implementation of the EVAT.
Margarito Tevez, the new finance secretary should be asking himself why he is secretary when his own boss bypasses him.

el che said...

I can understand re: TRO but the the TRO is filed not by itself, but with a pleading for the permanent restrain on the EVAT as unconstitutional. The 15 days is for the ruling that it is unconstitutional, it being a decision of the SC. The 15 days is given to MR on the SCs finding that it is constitutional and not an MR on the lifting of the TRO.