CA to gov’t lawyers: Be prudent in interpreting TRO on Binay suspension
The Court of Appeals (CA) sixth division cautioned government lawyers to be more prudent in their interpretation of the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued against the suspension order imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman on Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay because their advice “may have triggered the defiance” in enforcing the appeals court order.
During the hearing on Binay’s petition to cite government executives in contempt, the associate justices questioned the Office of Solicitor General in seeking the advice of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima instead of going to the court for clarification.
“Why was there a sudden intervention of the DOJ (Department of Justice) Secretary? If there was a problem with this [TRO], it would be prudent to ask the court for clarification instead of going to the DOJ,” Associate Justice Eduardo Peralta Jr. said.
Senior State Solicitor Raymond Rigodon said the restraining order issued by the court on March 16 was no longer valid.
Associate Justice Jose Reyes Jr., on the other hand, said, “did you confer with [Interior and Local Government] Secretary Mar Roxas about the effects of the TRO? [Because] your March 17 manifestation may have triggered the defiance [of the court order].”
The manifestation Justice Reyes was referring was that of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales which noted that the restraining order issued by the appeals court was already moot and academic because the suspension order had been served.
“There is no defiance your honor. The TRO was served when the PNP had already fully implemented the suspension order,” Rigodon said.
But Justice Reyes said, “you could have been prudent in giving your opinion or advice. Like the Secretary of Justice (De Lima), she gave her opinion, but in the end she said it’s not binding.”
Associate Justice Francisco Acosta asked Rigodon of any basis in concluding that the appeals court’s restraining order was invalid.
“You stated that the DILG officials cannot be cited for contempt because the restraining order is not valid, do you have any case to cite?” Justice Acosta asked.
Rigodon had no ready answer.
Meanwhile, Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Gerard Mosquera said Ombudsman Morales would not participate in any act that will defy the law.
“She will never support, participate or encourage any act that will defy any order not only from this court but also from other judicial body,” Mosquera said.
He added that an impeachable officer, such as the Ombudsman, may not be subjected to contempt proceedings as it may lead to imprisonment if found guilty, preventing her from discharging her duties.
This situation would “create a ground for removal of said officer other than grounds provided by the Constitution.”
The appeals court gave De Lima as well as Makati Vice Mayor Romulo “Kid” Peña three days to submit their comment.
The appeals court added that it would soon issue a ruling on whether or not it would make permanent the 60-day restraining order it issued against the implementation of Binay’s suspension. RC
