Voting 8-5, the Supreme Court yesterday lifted the travel ban on former president and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel after it issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) stopping the implementation of a watchlist order (WLO) issued by the Justice Department.

In a press briefing, Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez said that the majority of the justices believed that the "couple enjoys the presumption of innocence" as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.

Marquez added the high bench noted that a denial on the couple's plea for a TRO "might work injustice" for them.

The SC required the DoJ to submit its comment within three days. The High Court also set the couple's petition challenging the legality of DoJ circular no 41, for an oral argument on November 22.

The SC set several conditions before the couple could leave the country. They should post a travel bond of P2 million for both of them and they should appoint a legal representative that will receive in their behalf legal processes like subpoenas.

Also, the couple should inform or report to Philippine embassies and consular offices in the country where they are staying.

Marquez said the conditions were set by the SC "after thoroughly reviewing the circumstances and case itself."

Asked on the apprehension of the government that the couple may not return once they are allowed to leave, Marquez stressed there are remedies available to the government once that happens.

"Once they comply with the requirements (the first two), they can immediately leave the country," Marquez said.

He stressed that the couple, in their separate petitions which were consolidated, was able to show that they are entitled to a temporary relief like a TRO.

He said the SC is consistent in upholding the couple's presumption of innocence as one of the fundamental rights the accused enjoys.

According to Marquez, the TRO is indefinite. It may be lifted if either one of the couple violates any of the conditions.

"The SC recognizes that their continued inclusion in the WLO may work injustice to them," Marquez said.

But Marquez qualified that the TRO is only for the Arroyo couple and will not cover their fellow respondents who were also included in the WLO.

The justices who voted against the TRO believed that the case must be heard first before the restraining order could  be issue, he said.