Case Summary (G.R. No. 168056)
Applicable Law and Judicial Framework
– Constituting Law: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date September 1, 2005).
– Procedural Rule: Supreme Court’s power to punish for indirect contempt under the Rules of Court.
Statements and Allegations by Secretary Purisima
– In his compliance to a show-cause order, Purisima denied ever claiming or insinuating that President Arroyo or Malacañang influenced the Supreme Court to issue the TRO.
– He admitted expressing disappointment over the TRO’s impact on fiscal policy and inquiring among cabinet colleagues whether the Palace “had a hand” in the order, but insisted these inquiries did not equate to accusing the Court of being pressured.
Media Reports Attributed to Purisima
- Philippine Star (July 10, 2005): Reported that Purisima and other officials felt the President influenced the Court to delay the EVAT for political survival.
- Daily Tribune (July 10, 2005): Quoted Purisima hinting that Mrs. Arroyo had a hand in procuring the TRO.
- Manila Standard Today (July 11, 2005): Noted insinuations by Purisima that the President wanted the law’s implementation postponed.
- Philippine Star Business Section (July 11, 2005): Reported Purisima felt “betrayed” by an alleged Palace intervention in the Court’s decision.
- Philippine Daily Inquirer (July 12, 2005): Stated that Purisima and another official insinuated Presidential influence on the Court, without his immediate denial.
Supreme Court’s Findings on Contempt
– The Court deemed Purisima’s post-show-cause denials untimely and insufficient, as no retraction was made when the reports first appeared.
– His
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 168056)
Procedural Background
- Consolidated petitions were filed under G.R. Nos. 168056, 168207, 168461, 168463, and 168730 by multiple petitioners (including Abakada Guro Party List officers, Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., various gasoline station associations and operators, and Bataan Governor Enrique T. Garcia, Jr.) seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to suspend the implementation of Republic Act No. 9337 (Expanded Value-Added Tax Law).
- Respondents were Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, Finance Secretary Cesar V. Purisima, Jr., Bureau of Internal Revenue Commissioner Guillermo L. Parayno, Jr., and other OIC officials of the Bureau of Customs and BIR.
- On July 1, 2005, the Supreme Court en banc issued a TRO against the implementation of RA 9337, prompting dissatisfaction among certain Executive officials.
Show-Cause Order
- On July 12, 2005, the Court’s Resolution required former Finance Secretary Cesar V. Purisima to show cause why he should not be held in indirect contempt for statements that allegedly disparaged the Court’s integrity.
- The Court characterized the alleged statements as conduct that placed the judiciary and its Members in dishonor, disrepute, and discredit, thus degrading the administration of justice.
Purisima’s Compliance
- In his compliance, Purisima denied ever claiming or insinuating that the Supreme Court was influenced or pressured by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo or Malacañang to issue the TRO.
- He explained that his inquiries among cabinet colleagues arose from rumors linking Malacañang to the TRO, motivated by his duty as Finance Secretary and by prior discussions between the President and the