S1E65 – You want a TRO? Show me the money!

What is the meaning of freedom?” I began the evening’s lecture by asking my students a question for which there is no universal answer.

“Imagine this class—we keep saying that laws exist to guard our freedom. We rarely stop to think about what we mean by that. In fact, what we’re saying is that for our freedom to be safe, we have to prevent some people from doing certain things. In other words, we need to violate freedom in order to protect freedom.”

Miss Kata Ngahan, my student with the English literature major, was quick to catch my throw, “That’s an oxymoron sir, when you say one thing to stress its opposite.”

“That’s right, Miss Kata,” I said, “just to help your classmates appreciate the contrast more, would you give a few more examples?”

“Yes, sir…uh.. ‘dying completes life’ …uh… ‘criticism is the highest form of flattery’… uh… ‘hot revenge is a dish best served cold’….uh…stop me anytime, sir “

“I’ll stop you by letting you go on,” I said.

“THAT is another oxymoron, what you just said, sir!” Miss Kata gushed.

“That’s right. I hope you get the point class, because tonight I want to talk to you about how the law is to be used properly to violate freedom in order to protect freedom.”

“Are you talking about injunction and mandamus, sir?” Miss Deema asked.

“Well, much later on I will,” I said, “but for now perhaps we can benefit from an understanding of the basic concept of an injunction and a mandamus first. Without reading your codal, Miss Deema, give us those definitions in your own words.”

“Uh…well…sir, injunction is when the court tells you ‘Stop it! Stop it! Stapeeeet!!’ and mandamus is when the court tells you ‘Do it! Do it! Dooeeeeet!!” Deema said in dramatic fashion, complete with feet-stomping.

“Hahaha…I love your effort of adding dramatic emphasis, Miss Deema, but I hope you got the point class, an injunction or mandamus in layman’s terms is a FORCEFUL ORDER,” I realized one drawback of lecturing unconventionally is my students also recite unconventionally!

“You see class, the point of Miss Deema’s emphasis is to draw a distinction between an ordinary court order, and an INJUNCTIVE court order. People throw those terms around—injunction, mandamus, temporary restraining order etc—without really understanding what they mean.”

“Maybe it’s because ‘mandamus’ sounds like ‘commandamus’ sir,” said Jack Makataruz.

“I know, Jack, in fact ‘command’ is derived from the Latin rootword mandamus. But before we get into that, can anyone recall the definition on an ‘ordinary action’ under your Rules of Court?”

Miss Laarnee Iwasan spoke, “Sir, an action is where one party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or for the prevention or redress of a wrong.”

“Knowing that, what can we expect the court to do at the END of a case involving a right, Miss Laarnee?”

“Well, sir, if it has to enforce a right, it will command one party to do something, or if it has to protect a right, it will restrain another party from doing something,” Laarnee said.

“What about if it involves a wrong?” I followed up.

“Well, sir, if the court has to prevent a wrong, it will restrain a party from doing something, and if it has to redress a wrong, it will command another party to do something…how come the same??” the class start mumbling among themselves, trying to sort out the confusing repetitions, so after allowing the class chatter to percolate for a few moments, I banged the blackboard to refocus everybody.

“Listen, class, Everything–and I will say it again, EVERYTHING–in your Rules of Court is there to lay the foundation for the judge to either tell you to DO SOMETHING or to STOP DOING IT. Why else would you go to court?” I posed the rhetorical question, followed by another one, “WHAT is it that you have to do after the court has decided in your favor, to make its decision meaningful?”

Deema spoke up, “You move for execution, sir. Otherwise, all you’ve got is a hollow victory.”

“That’s correct, Miss Deema,” I said, “and when does execution happen?”

“AFTER the decision has been rendered, sir.”

“When is the decision in a case ‘usually’ rendered, Miss Deema?”

“Not just usually, sir, the decision is ALWAYS rendered at END of the case!”

“Very good. Now you said injunction is the court telling you ‘stop it!’ and mandamus is the court telling you ‘do it!’ but Miss Laarne here showed us that THAT precisely is also what a court tells the parties in ALL OTHER cases. So how is INJUNCTION and MANDAMUS different?”

The class greet me with blank stares. So I said, “let me help you there…TEMPORARY restraining order…PRELIMINARY injunction…”

“Oh! Oh! I got it! I got it, sir!”

“Yes, Miss Deema?”

“The court will always command you to do or not do something. In an ordinary case, it tells you that at the END. But in an injunction or mandamus case that includes a TRO, the court tells you at the BEGINNING!”

“That’s correct,” I said, “and because the court is giving that order at the BEGINNING, when it hasn’t seen any evidence yet, can the court commit a mistake in granting a temporary restraining order?”

The whole class said, “No, sir!”

“Why not, Miss Deema?”

“Well, sir, because the court has not seen any evidence so there’s not much basis to say whether the court was right or wrong,” Deema said.

“Yeeeaaah…but the court must have SOME basis to act upon, it cannot be arbitrary!” I said

“Yes, sir, it must make assumptions based purely on the uncontested allegations in a motion for TRO.”

“Like what assumptions?”

“Sir..uh…like the party has the right to demand a TRO, that it is entitled to it…?” Deema said, her voice trailing in some doubt.

“Oh, now we have a problem, Miss Deema. You want a TRO, I am the judge. You’re telling me you are entitled to a TRO as a matter of right. But I need the rest of the trial to hear you establish that right. I have to wait till the END of the trial to see if I’m convinced. On the other hand, you want me to issue the TRO at the BEGINNING of the trial. So how do we solve that impasse?”

“Sir—”

“Counsel will address the Court as ‘Your Honor!” I joked, just to throw Teacher’s Pet off-balanced.

“Oh, sorry Your Honor…then at the time I present my motion for TRO, I must already be able to show that my right EXISTS, regardless if I am right or wrong in how I invoke it. But at the very least, that right I am invoking must EXIST.”

“I want to hear you say that in Latin, Counsel!” I growled.

“Yes, Your Honor…uh… that right must—”

“Latin! I said in Latin!!” I banged the blackboard.

“E jus debet esse in esse!” of course I know Deema knew, she was just delaying saying it for dramatic effect. The bloody diva!

“Hehehe…that’s right Counsel,” I smirked, “but remember, it is only YOU who interpreted your right ‘in esse’—could you be wrong?”

“Certainly, sir, I’m not the judge, I’m the TRO or preliminary injunction applicant, so I’m biased, I will act according to what’s in my best interest. I will favor myself, of course,” Deema playacted. So did I.

“Oh, really? Well, you young smartaleck lady lawyer you, I’m not granting you that TRO or preliminary injunction unless you pay any damages that your opponent might suffer if you lied to me!”

“Oh, sure, Your Honor, I’m willing to pay—” but I cut her short by shouting at the top of my lungs:

“I don’t care what you’re WILLING to do, Counsel. Show me the money! SHOW…MEE..DA…MONEY!!!… SHOW ME THE MANNEEEY!!!!!”

The whole class burst out laughing at their professor’s silly antic.

Then I asked, “What did I just ask Miss Deema to come up with, class?”

They all chorused, “INJUNCTION BOND, Sir!!!”

“Uh-huh…now you understand INJUNCTION and TRO. Next meeting we’ll discuss MANDAMUS.” Miss Deema was still standing, looking at me with wide-open eyes.

“Well, Miss Deema, any parting words?”

“You had me at ‘hello’ sir…”*

---