CA closes for the day without TRO for Binay
The Court of Appeals. Inset Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
The offices at the Court of Appeals (CA) closed on Tuesday, without an immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the second suspension order of the Office of the Ombudsman issued against Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr.
Binay’s petition for certiorari, which came with an “extremely urgent” prayer for a TRO to readily stop his six-month suspension, was raffled Tuesday morning to the Tenth Division.
The division is chaired by Associate Justice Celia Librea-Leagogo, with Associate Justices Amy Lazaro Javier and Melchor Sadang as members.
It is the second certiorari plea that the Binay camp filed before the appellate court, with the first — filed in March to challenge the Ombudsman’s first suspension order against the Mayor — still pending at the Sixth Division.
The Sixth division earlier issued a TRO and, later, an indefinite writ of preliminary injunction putting on hold Binay’s suspension pending deliberations on the certiorari plea. The Ombudsman, meanwhile, has a pending petition before the Supreme Court challenging the CA proceedings.
In his latest petition, Binay asked the CA to junk Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales’ suspension order, this time issued for his alleged participation in the conspiracy to rig the bidding for the construction of the 10-story Makati Science High School (MSHS) to purportedly favor a pre-selected bidder.
The petition, filed Tuesday morning at the appellate court, said Morales had made her latest issuance with grave abuse of discretion and despite the lack of sufficient evidence proving Binay’s role in the alleged anomaly.
“Clearly, the Ombudsman whimsically and capriciously disregarded and violated the foregoing established laws and jurisprudence,” read the 35-page petition.
“Accordingly, with due respect, Petitioner seeks the Court’s protection from the Ombusdman’s otherwise illegal and unfounded “preventive suspension order,” which will deprive the Makati City electorate of the services of the person they have conscientiously chosen and voted into office,” it said.
It sought an immediate TRO to preserve the status quo prior to the issuance of a suspension order “for the petitioner to continue the discharge of his official functions.”
The petition cited how the case against Binay, which spurred the suspension order, was based solely on allegations by Mario Hechanova, former head of the Makati City Government’s General Services Department.
The Binay camp called Hechanova’s accusations “hearsay,” asserting that “it cannot be correctly claimed that the evidence against the petitioner is strong” as to warrant the issuance of a suspension order.
“The Ombudsman failed to evaluate evidence against petitioner and merely relied on complainant’s perjurious allegations in their complaint that there were irregularities in the bidding of the construction for phase IV of the MSHS,” read the petition.
“The Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in issuing the joint order preventively suspending the petitioner considering that there are no substantial or material irregularities stated in the complaint,” it said.
The mayor’s camp also again invoked the doctrine of condonation, a legal concept where an official is deemed absolved of any administrative liability by virtue of reelection.
It said “[t]he doctrine has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases spanning more than 50 years.”
The petition noted that Phases IV and V of the MSHS project, the subject of the Ombudsman probe, “all occurred during [the Mayor’s first term] in 2010, and that he was elected again for a second term in 2013.
“He is being held administratively accountable despite the clear fact that his reelection rendered case moot and academic,” said the petition.
“Notwithstanding the fact that Phases IV and V all occurred during petitioner’s first term and he was subsequently reelected for a second term, the Ombudsman nevertheless insists that he is still administratively liable and justifies his preventive suspension,” the plea read.
The condonation doctrine was the subject of a tense exchange between Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Binay’s counsel Sandra Coronel during arguments on the Ombudsman’s challenge against the mayor’s first certiorari plea to stop his suspension before the CA.
During her hour-long interpellation, Sereno said the “unfortunate doctrine” was “wrong, that it would “wreak havoc on the Constitutional framework,” and that it would put in peril the quality of governance for future generations of Filipinos.
The Binay camp later attempted in vain to have Sereno voluntarily inhibit from the case pending before her sala, accusing her of bias.
RELATED VIDEOS
