Court Contempt Threat for Purisima Only Raises More Questions

There’s little doubt in my mind that the Supreme Court issued the show cause order against former Sec. Purisima to indirectly declare that it was not pressured into issuing the eVAT TROs.  The Court’s order went like this:

Acting on print and broadcast accounts in the last few days that former Secretary Cesar V. Purisima of the Department of Finance claimed or insinuated that the Court was pressured or influenced by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo or Malacañang Palace to issue the Temporary Restraining Order in these cases, the Court RESOLVED TO DIRECT former SECRETARY CESAR V. PURISIMA to show cause, within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from receipt hereof, why he should not be held in contempt for such act or conduct which puts the Court and its Members into dishonor, disrepute and discredit, and degrades the administration of justice.

Under the Rules of Court, Purisima risks paying a fine or imprisonment or both, if found guilty of indirect contempt.  But is he guilty?  As far as I know, he did not categorically declare that the Supreme Court was pressured by Malacanang to issue the TRO.  In fact, he adopted the oft-used phrase “I neither confirm nor deny.”  Did he insinuate that the Court was influenced by the President?  Maybe.

But that’s beside the point.  Whatever the Court does to Purisima, this move to cite him in contempt will not quell the speculation or clear itself of the charge.  It will only add fuel to the fire because now it seems that the Court is taking retaliatory action against Sec. Purisima in behalf of Malacanang. 

Unfortunately, there’s little the Court can do to counter the rumors flying around.  They can’t (and I suppose won’t) conduct public hearings to investigate the issue.  It seems though that the Court has quizzed its members (as a prerequisite for the show cause order) but other than the expected denials, it will not go very far. 

To make matters worse for the Court, there is some basis for the speculation. First, 9 out of the 15 justices were appointed by GMA.  Second, all 9 voted in favor of the TRO.  Third, of the 9, at least 3 voted for the TRO even though they were not physically present during deliberations — some Justices even voted from a different continent.  Finally, it is common knowledge that the VAT suspension was politically advantageous to the Arroyo Administration.

I wonder if the Court should have just kept quiet and went about the business of considering the merits of the petition.  Under the circumstances, they have done everything in their power to speed up the resolution of the case.  They should just focus on that and write “finis” to this episode.  As it stands now, they’re calling attention back to themselves.  I can’t blame them though. It’s hard to be attacked and not defend yourself but sometimes, silence can be strategic too.