Junjun Binay wants De Lima, Ombudsman cited for contempt
MANILA, Philippines—Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay on Thursday asked the Court of Appeals to cite for contempt of court Justice Secretary Leila de Lima and Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales.
The Binay camp amended their petition for contempt which they filed on Tuesday to include De Lima and Morales.
Both Morales and De Lima issued their positions saying the 60-day restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals against the implementation of the six-month suspension order imposed on Binay was already moot and academic.
De Lima also said Vice Mayor Romulo “Kid” Peña could exercise his duties as acting mayor. She said the TRO had preserved the validity of the oath-taking of Peña.
“Indeed, respondents have blatantly displayed their lack of respect for the Honorable Court as they arbitrarily, whimsically and capriciously substitute their own opinion for the Honorable Court’s judicial pronouncement,” the amended petition stated.
Apart from De Lima and Morales, the Binay camp also asked the appeals court to cite for contempt Interior and Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas, Renato Brion, DILG-NCR director; Carmelo Valmoria, director of the Philippine National Police-National Capital Region Police Office (PNP-NCRPO); Henry Rañola, director of the Southern Police District; Senior Supt. Elmer Jamias, and Peña.
MAIN STORY: Junjun Binay asked CA to cite Roxas et al in contempt of court for defying TRO
“Such willful, deliberate and contumacious acts and omissions of respondents in craftily refusing compliance with the TRO is a patent and willful contempt of court as it constitutes disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order or judgment of a court and improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice,” the amended petition said.
The appeals court issued the 60-day restraining order against the Ombudsman’s six-month suspension order imposed on Binay in connection with the alleged overpriced Makati Parking Building.
Meanwhile, De Lima in a statement said, “I’m not sure of the basis of such contempt charge but I’m sure that any such charge for indirect contempt in the context of this case will sound hollow considering that there can be no basis for contempt if the TRO was, by its very nature, rendered ineffective and moot and academic due to two supervening events, namely, the service of the suspension order and the oath-taking of the acting mayor.”
“The ineffectivity of the TRO was not rendered by any other external act of the respondents after its issuance but by these supervening events which took place before the issuance of the TRO. So, where is the contumacious act here?” De Lima said.
