Mamba, counsel told: Explain why SC shouldn’t hold you in contempt
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) is calling out Cagayan Gov. Manuel Mamba and his legal counsel for allegedly abusing court processes in relation to a contempt order issued against him by the House of Representatives.
On Wednesday, the high court directed Mamba and Macalintal Law Office to explain why they should not be held in contempt for acts that constitute “abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt” and “improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.”
This developed after Mamba’s August 24 surrender to the House of Representatives amid the contempt and detention order – which he questioned before the SC on August 22. The Cagayan governor even asked the SC to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the House contempt directive, which the court eventually granted.
Mamba did not inform the SC about his surrender to the House, but the governor was released by the House because of the TRO. Upon his release, Mamba filed a petition withdrawing his case before the high court.
According to the SC, Mamba’s move to surrender to the House rendered the TRO worthless. It now wants Mamba and his legal counsel to explain “why they should not be disciplinarily dealt with” before finally acting on their manifestation and motion to withdraw the case.
The SC is giving Mamba and Macalintal Law Office 10 days to submit their explanation.
On August 17, the House of Representatives ordered the detention of Mamba after being cited for contempt as he did not show up in the hearing that discussed his alleged public spending violation during election period for the May 2022 polls.
The House conducted its own investigation since the Commission on Elections (Comelec) en banc reversed the December 2022 decision of the of its Second Division, disqualifying Mamba for violating the public spending ban in 2022. The Comelec en banc said in March that its Second Division does not have the authority or jurisdiction to hear or resolve the matter.