Ombudsman asks SC to nullify CA TRO on Binay suspension
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales asked the Supreme Court (SC) to nullify the resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) stopping the implementation of the six-month suspension imposed on Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay.
In a 31-page petition for certiorari and prohibition filed on Wednesday, the Ombudsman said the appeals court Sixth Division committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing two resolutions: (1) the one that pertained to the TRO, dated March 16, on Binay’s six-month preventive suspension; and (2) a March 20 resolution that directed the Ombudsman to file her comment on Binay’s plea to cite her in contempt for defying the restraining order.
READ: CA orders Ombudsman, de Lima, Roxas et al to answer Binay contempt case
She explained that the preventive suspension was issued to prevent him from interfering with the ongoing investigation.
“In this case, respondent Binay was placed under preventive suspension pending the resolution of the administrative complaints against him (but not to exceed six months) for good reason – the cases involve anomalies in the procurement and payment for the Parking Building of the Makati City Hall. Needless to state, practically all the documentary evidence relevant to the case are in the custody of the city government, in the same way that potential witnesses – whether friendly or adverse – are currently in the City’s employ. There is, therefore, an imperative need to guard such evidence and witnesses against possible tampering and intimidation; hence, the preventive suspension against respondent Binay and his co-respondents, who are likewise incumbent officials of the city government,” the petition stated.
MAIN STORY: Mayor Junjun Binay ordered suspended for six months
“Without doubt, therefore, the preventive suspension imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman on respondent Binay is not only permissible under the law but necessary given the prevailing circumstances of the case. The Suspension Order was dictated by prudence and the need to preserve the integrity of the ongoing administrative adjudication,” Carpio-Morales added.
She said the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the CA in effect is delaying and interfering with the ongoing administrative cases against Binay “and worse, compromise the pending proceedings by granting him continued access to evidence and witnesses that bear heavily on the resolution of his case.”
“Respondent Court of Appeals cannot substitute the Office of the Ombudsman’s judgment for its own,” the petition further stated.
It added that in issuing the restraining order, the Court of Appeals “gravely abused its discretion and wantonly ignored the independence and mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman.”
READ: CA issues TRO on Junjun Binay suspension
Binay was suspended for six months after the Ombudsman fact-finding team recommended that he and several others were slapped with a case for violation of the anti-graft law and malversation in connection with the allegedly overpriced parking building.
Binay went to the Court of Appeals and asked to stop the implementation of the suspension order.
The appeals court issued a TRO but the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the Office of the Ombudsman defied the restraining order saying it is already moot and academic because the suspension order has been served.
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima also issued a legal opinion agreeing with the Ombudsman that the restraining order is already moot and academic.
Binay filed another petition with the Court of Appeals asking that Interior Secretary Manuel “Mar” Roxas II, de Lima and Carpio-Morales be cited in contempt.
The appeals court already ordered the said officials to answer the contempt case.
But Carpio-Morales, in her petition with the Supreme Court said she is an impeachable officer who may not be subjected to contempt proceedings.
“As an impeachable officer, petitioner can only be subjected to criminal proceedings after she steps down from office. Otherwise, the constitutional guarantee against her removal from office except through the extraordinary process of impeachment would be rendered nugatory.
“Such immunity, common to all impeachable officers, is but another manifestation of the intent of the 1987 Constitution to make the Office of the Ombudsman a truly independent body insulated from politics,” the petition read.
The Ombudsman said that contempt proceedings are “criminal in nature,” which carries the penalty of fine or imprisonment, something that the Constitution does not allow in so far as the anti-graft body is concerned.
“Allowing a criminal charge to proceed against an impeachable officer would indirectly expose her to the risk of being removed from office through means other than that ordained by the 1987 Constitution,” the petition read. ID
