"x x x.
While this opinion was being written, Court Administrator and Acting Chief of the Public Information Office (PIO) Atty. Midas Marquez informed the press that the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was effective, i.e., “in full force and effect.” Contrary to this interpretation, as stated, it was the understanding of a majority that the TRO is “suspended pending compliance” with our earlier Resolution. The operational ineffectivity of the TRO is implied – for it is a basic principle that the failure of petitioners to comply with one of the conditions in the Resolution dated 15 November 2011 is a jurisdictional defect that suspends, at the least, the effectivity of the TRO. Therefore, the TRO, until faithful compliance with the terms thereof, is legally ineffective. It was a human mistake, understandable on the part of the Clerk of Court, considering the way the TRO was rushed, to have issued the same despite non-compliance by petitioners with one of the strict conditions imposed by the Court.
Nevertheless, good faith and all, the legal effect of such non-compliance is the same – petitioners cannot make use thereof for failure to comply faithfully with a condition imposed by this Court for its issuance.
The Court Administrator cum Acting Chief of the PIO is hereby advised to be careful not to go beyond his role in such offices, and that he has no authority to interpret any of our judicial issuances, including the present Resolution, a function he never had from the beginning.
Furthermore, it is hereby clarified that it is mandatory for the Clerk of Court to ensure that there is faithful compliance with all the conditions imposed in our 15 November 2011 resolution, including our second condition, before issuing any certification that the compliance with the TRO has been made, and only then can the TRO become effective.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice
x x x."
