The Supreme Court (SC) has denied for "lack of merit" and as "a prohibited pleading" the Office of the Solicitor General’s (OSG) motion for clarification and second motion to reconsider its Dec. 19, 2005 decision that allowed the government to take over Terminal 3 of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) only after payment of an initial P3.002 billion to the Philippines International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO) representing the proffered value of the state-of-the-art facilities.

In a full court resolution dated Feb. 21, 2006 and released to the media yesterday, the High Court said: "The court resolved to deny for lack of merit the urgent motion for leave to file a motion for clarification and second motion for reconsideration of the decision of Dec. 19, 2005, dated Feb. 17, 2005 filed by counsel for petitioners; and to deny the aforesaid motion for clarification and second motion for reconsideration dated Feb. 17, 2006, considering that a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Rule 52, Section 2, in relation to Rule 56, Section 2, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended."

In its second motion for reconsideration, the OSG asked the High Court to "take a long and hard look" on the legal and factual arguments it presented.

The OSG also asked that the more than P3.002 billion representing the proferred value of NAIA’s Terminal 3 be held in escrow pending determination of just compensation.

In a full court session on Jan. 31, 2006, the Supreme Court denied with finality the first motion for partial reconsideration filed by the OSG in behalf of the government.

In a 14-page resolution issued on Jan. 31, 2006 and written by Justice Dante O. Tinga, the High Court said: "Wherefore, the motion for partial reconsideration of the petitioners (Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, the Department of Transportation and Communications, and the Manila International Airport Authority) is denied with finality."

Also denied in the Jan. 31, 2006 resolution were the motions for partial reconsideration filed by two Japanese firms – Takenaka Corp. and Asahikosan Corp. – and the motions for reconsideration-in-intervention filed by Rep. Salacnib Baterina.

Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Romeo J. Callejo Sr., Adolfo S. Azcuna, Minita V. Chico Nazario, and Cancio C. Garcia concurred in the resolution.

Justice Renato C. Corona wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, and Justices Reynato S. Puno and Conchita Carpio Morales.

In its Dec. 19, 2005 decision, also written by Justice Tinga, the High Court ruled that within 60 days from the finality of its decision, the Pasay City regional trial court (RTC) shall determine the just compensation to PIATCO for the construction of Terminal 3.

The decision affirmed with modification the Jan. 4, 2005 order of the late RTC Judge Henrick Gingoyon allowing PIATCO to get over P62 million in government deposit.

The trial court issued last December a writ of possession in favor of the government but later allowed the release to PIATCO of the million deposit as requirement for the takeover of the Terminal 3.

The government questioned the trial court’s ruling, saying it is only willing to pay a deposit of over P2.8 billion ( million).

On Jan. 14, 2005, the High Court issued a temporary restraining order stopping the implementation of Gingoyon’s rulings in favor of PIATCO.

SC asked to junk  petitions vs EO 464 for lack of merit

By REY G. PANALIGAN

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss for lack of merit all the petitions challenging the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 464 that bans top executive officials and ranking military and police officers from attending congressional investigations without permission from President Arroyo.

In a consolidated memorandum filed last Monday by Alfredo Benipayo before he tendered his resignation as solicitor general, the OSG told the High Court that EO 464 merely requires officials of the Executive department to secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before any congressional inquiry.

This permission, Benipayo said, "is for the purpose of ensuring the observance of the principle of separation of powers, adherence to the rule of executive privilege, and respect for the rights of public officials appearing in congressional inquiries."

EO 464 was issued last year when the Senate ordered the detention of former National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales for his refusal to answer questions on the contract with an American lobby group.

Among six petitions filed against EO 464 was one signed by 17 senators led by Senate President Franklin M. Drilon.

"It is respectfully prayed that the petitions be dismissed for lack of merit," Benipayo told the High Court. It was the same plea he aired during the oral arguments on the petitions last Feb. 21.

"Executive Order 464 does not hamper Congress’ lawmaking function by virtually depriving it of information," Benipayo said.

"EO 464 does not prevent the House of Representatives or the Senate from conducting inquiries in aid of legislation. Nor does EO 464 seek to prohibit department heads and such other officials of the executive branch from appearing in any legislative inquiry. It merely requires executive officials covered by it to secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before Congress for the purpose of ensuring the observance of the principle of separation of powers, adherence to the rule of executive privilege, and respect for the rights of public officials," he said.

Benipayo pointed out that despite the issuance of EO 464, the Senate had conducted at least 67 investigations where 431 executive officials were present, while the House of Representatives had 169 legislative inquiries where 421 executive officials attended.

"In all of those instances, the President gave her consent to the appearance of the heads of departments and other senior public officials covered by EO 464 before both Houses of Congress," he said.

Pointing out that EO 464 does not prevent Congress from conducting inquiries, Benipayo said: "EO 464 merely provides for guidelines which officials of the executive branch of the government should follow whenever they receive requests to appear before either House of Congress in order to ensure, among others, that such invitation and appearance will not violate the executive branch’s own independence as a separate branch of government under the Constitution."