MANILA, Philippines—Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. asked the Supreme Court to recall the Ombudsman’s order denying his appeal to reverse its earlier finding ordering the filing of plunder case before the Sandiganbayan in connection with the pork barrel scam.
In a 38-page petition for certiorari, Revilla through his lawyer Joel Bodegon also asked the high court to issue a restraining order to stop the implementation of the Ombudsman’s May 15 order.
The May 15 order of the Ombudsman denied, among others, Revilla’s request to recall its March 28 order finding probable cause to charge him before the Sandiganbayan with plunder and violation of the Anti-Graft Law.
Also, in his petition, Revilla also asked the high court to compel the Ombudsman to provide him a copy of all counter-affidavits used as bases in the filing of plunder case against him.
Revilla said while Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales granted his request that he be furnished copies of the counter-affidavits, it was only for the six out of 19 that he has requested.
Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
“The Ombudsman has fallen short of fully recognizing Senator Revilla’s constitutional and legal right to due process…as it furnished him a copy of only six counter-affidavits…,” the new petition stated.
Revilla noted that the special panel of investigators’ order providing him with copies of some of the counter-affidavits was issued at the time that no motion to be furnished the same was pending before it to resolve.
“This leads to no other conclusion that the special panel attempted, but failed, to rectify its error in denying Senator Revilla’s right to due process,” the petition pointed out.
“Evidently, the courses of action taken by the Special Panel are clear manifestations of bias, prejudice and partiality against Senator Revilla. Senator Revilla, is, thus, justified in seeking their inhibition in the proceedings a quo,” it added.
Revilla said the Ombudsman’s violation of his constitutional right to due process nullifies its finding of probable cause against him for plunder and warrant the re-conduct of the preliminary investigation.
He added that it is basic in constitutional law that in criminal proceedings, due process requires giving the respondent or the accused a chance to rebut the allegations made against him.
“A preliminary investigation that is bereft of due process, as in the instant cases, is a complete nullity,” the petition said.
Revilla added that the failure of the Ombudsman to provide him with all the counter-affidavits has raised suspicions that some of the said documents may contain allegations that are favorable to his defense.
“In the interest of substantial justice and fairness, Senator Revilla prayed that the Ombudsman constitute a new panel of investigators to hear and resolve his Omnibus motion, and to conduct the preliminary investigation on the charges against him as he has, with clear reason therefore, lost faith in the impartiality of the present special panel of investigators handling the instant cases,” the senator said.
This is the second petition Revilla filed with the Supreme Court. Revilla’s first petition sought a reversal of the March resolution ordering his indictment for plunder. He also asked the high court to conduct an oral argument.
The high court, however, turned down his request for oral argument. Instead, it ordered all the parties to submit a memorandum on his petition.
RELATED STORIES
Enrile studying his case; Estrada ‘immune’; Revilla leaves it to God
Ombudsman OKs plunder raps vs Enrile, Estrada, Revilla, Napoles