A Divided Supreme Court Issues the VAT TRO

Last Friday evening, as I prepared to go home for the weekend, I received a flash report from the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office, with a copy of the Court’s TRO against the implementation of the EVAT law.  Some quarters have insinuated that the GMA-controlled Court (she appointed 9 of the 15 sitting justices) issued the TRO to give Malacanang some respite from the barrage of attacks it has been receiving in the past few weeks.  That may be the case but for me, I was intrigued by the unique way some Justices voted on the issue. The order states:

Davide, Jr., C.J. and Puno, J., voted against the issuance of the TRO, for collection of taxes cannot be enjoined being the lifeblood of the nation, without prejudice to their stand in the earlier EVAT cases. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio and Corona JJ., called by long distance from Madrid and conveyed their votes for the issuance of the TRO; and Ynares-Santiago and Austria-Martinez, JJ., conveyed their votes for the issuance of the TRO through cellular phones.

This is the first time I’ve heard that Supreme Court justices  had participated in deliberations through telephone and cellular phone.  While the Rules do allow a single Justice of the Supreme Court to issue the TRO (Rule 58, Sec. 2), I wonder why the Court felt that the participation of all the justices was necessary. After all, it’s not as if Justices Carpio or Corona are working on their caseload while they’re in Madrid. 

Certainly, the technology exists to make the deliberations possible accross great distances.  Were the off-Court Justices needed to participate to ensure the issuance of the TRO at all?

If we assume all those who were off-Court are excluded from the voting, then that leaves us with 10 justices, of which 6 were appointed by GMA.  That might have been too close for comfort if one wanted to ensure the issuance of the TRO and could get the GMA-appointees to vote for it.  With only 10 justices left, the minority can force a deadlock by getting only one GMA-appointed justice to their side. So to reach the goal of having the TRO, it would be better to marshall the full force of the GMA-appointed justices (all 9 of them).  This way, even assuming a solid minority block of 6 (i.e., the non-GMA appointed Justices), they will still need to get 2 votes to swing the decision the other way.

While the 13-2 vote renders the above analysis unnecesary, this might have been the same plan followed assuming Malacanang wanted the TRO to be issued and had the ability to sway Justices to this position.

Or maybe I’m just a paranoid conspiracy theorist.