Practice question
The Supreme Court restrains implementation of a disputed substitution and preserves the pre-substitution state, as described in the 2024 main ruling. A party says later proclamation and oath necessarily defeat that preservation simply because they occurred. Which is sound?
- The Court must apply the TRO’s scope and legal effect; later acts do not automatically validate what the order stayed.
- Every later act necessarily overrides a Supreme Court restraint.
- A proclamation privately lifts every judicial order.
- The passage of time alone proves final entitlement.
- The provisional order has no possible effect on implementing the restrained change.
Legal references
- Rules of Court, Rules 57-61, provisional-remedy purposes and the particular provisions identified in each explanation: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_1-71_civil.html
- Megaworld Properties and Holdings, Inc. v. Majestic Finance and Investment Co., Inc., G.R. No. 169694, December 9, 2015, main decision, actual provisional command and last peaceable state: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/dec2015/gr_169694_2015.html
- Duterte Youth Party-List v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 261123 and 261876, August 20, 2024, en banc main decision, TRO preserving the pre-substitution state and effect on later acts: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/aug2024/gr_261123_2024.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.