De Lima: ‘Why cite us in contempt of court’
JUSTICE Secretary Leila de Lima on Wednesday said a contempt case against her is not necessary because her legal opinion assailing the Court of Appeals’ restraining order on Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay’s suspension is “never binding” and is only a mere guidance.
In her opinion, De Lima has dismissed the TRO as moot and academic because it was issued late.
“I do not understand why is there a need to cite us in contempt of court, especially on my part. The DILG (Department of the Interior and Local Government) only asked for my guidance because they were faced with a serious situation where there are two people acting as mayors [of Makati],” de Lima told reports in an ambush interview.
De Lima, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, DILG Secretary Mar Roxas and several other police officers were slapped with a contempt case for refusing to honor the restraining order issued by the CA.
BACKSTORY: Junjun Binay wants De Lima, Ombudsman cited for contempt
The CA issued a restraining order against the enforcement of the six months suspension of Mayor Binay.
The government officials said the TRO is already moot and academic because the suspension order has been served against Binay and Makati Vice Mayor Romulo “Kid” Peña already took his oath as acting mayor.
“My opinion as the Secretary of Justice is never binding—it carries weight most of the time. It has what you call a persuasive effect, but does it bind everyone? Does it bind the court? No, it does not. It depends if the court will also agree with me,” de Lima said.
“But I cannot be muzzled. I cannot be restrained from rendering an opinion. Guidance eh, guidance lang naman yan,” de Lima said.
Both De Lima and Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales are of the view that the CA’s TRO came too late since it was issued after the suspension order was served on Binay, and Makati Vice-Mayor Romulo Peña had already taken his oath as acting mayor.
The appellate court gave De Lima three days to submit her comment on Binay’s petition. This, after it was found that she was not served on the court’s March 20 order for her to submit her position prior to the conduct of the oral arguments on Tuesday. AC
