SC junks Relampagos TRO plea in pork case | Inquirer News

SC junks Relampagos TRO plea in pork case

/ 03:23 PM February 04, 2015

Budget Undersecretary for Operations Mario L. Relampagos. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

Budget Undersecretary for Operations Mario L. Relampagos. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines–The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition of Budget Undersecretary Mario Relampagos that sought to stop the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with the graft cases filed against him in connection with the pork barrel scam.

“The court denied the application of petitioner for a temporary restraining order and or writ of preliminary injunction,” the high court’s Information Chief Theodore Te said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Te said the Supreme Court also directed the respondents—the Sandiganbayan and the Office of the Ombudsman—to comment on the petition within 10 days from receipt of notice.

FEATURED STORIES

Relampagos went to the Supreme Court after the antigraft court’s Third Division denied his petition challenging the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause against him in connection with the P10-billion Priority Development Assistance Fund, or pork barrel, scam.

The Ombudsman has indicted Relampagos and his staff, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare and Rosario Nuñez for allegedly acting as Janet Lim-Napoles’ contact in the Department of Budget Management in facilitating the release of Special Allotment Release Orders and Notice of Cash Allocations for the lawmaker’s pork barrel allocation.

They were among the 25 government employees who allegedly helped funnel the pork barrel allocation of lawmakers to bogus nongovernment organizations established by Napoles.

Relampagos is yet the highest official of a government agency charged in the scam.

RELATED STORIES

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Budget Usec Relampagos: Why me?

Relampagos, staff refute evidence

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS: Supreme Court

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.