De Lima’s TRO opinion ‘unconstitutional’
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima. INQUIRER.net FILE POTO/ NOY MORCOSO
MANILA, Philippines–Justice Secretary Leila de Lima may well be violating the law in publicly calling “moot” the temporary restraining order (TRO) from the Court of Appeals (CA) stopping the Ombudsman’s order suspending Makati Mayor Junjun Binay, according to two lawyers.
Harry Roque of the Center for International Law said De Lima’s opinion that the TRO was issued too late had no legal effect as it was the court order that should be followed.
“The TRO is clear. Respect the status quo with Binay as mayor. Has the order of suspension been validly served? I don’t think so. It should be by personal service, not by posting,” said Roque in a phone interview.
Vicente Joyas, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines president, was of the same opinion. “De Lima’s statement is not binding,” he said.
The appellate court issued on Monday a 60-day TRO, granting Binay’s certiorari petition against the Ombudsman’s order preventively suspending him for six months while he is being investigated in connection with the alleged overpricing of the Makati City Hall Building 2.
The TRO was released just hours after the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) posted the suspension order at the Makati City Hall and administered the oath of office on Vice Mayor Romulo Peña Jr. as acting mayor.
De Lima then said that the appellate court was late in issuing the TRO, so that the status quo that it preserved was not Binay’s continued stay as mayor but was Peña as the acting mayor.
Thus, Peña was the legitimate mayor of Makati, she said.
Roque said, however, that such pronouncement from an official in the executive branch was a breach of the principle of check and balance.
“She’s violating the constitutional separation of powers since she’s arrogating unto herself judicial powers,” he said.
He said De Lima’s media statements carried both criminal and administrative liabilities.
Roque said De Lima may be culpable for violating Article 231 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes “any judicial or executive officer who shall openly refuse to execute the judgment, decision or order of any superior authority.”
In addition, De Lima may also be liable for violating several rules of the lawyers’ Code of Professional Responsibility, including Rule 1.02 of Canon 1, which says “a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.”
Questionable motives
Meanwhile, Binay on Thursday included De Lima and Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales in his contempt plea before the CA, accusing the two, along with the officials earlier impleaded, of collusion to force his removal from office.
Earlier impleaded in the petition were Interior Secretary Mar Roxas, several police officials and Peña for insisting on Binay’s suspension despite the TRO.
“[The respondents], acting in unison in defying the Court of Appeals’ restraining order, show their ill motives and bias against the Binays. Worse, their actions insult the integrity and competence of the Court of Appeals. Thus, they should be cited for contempt of court,” said the Subido, Pagente, Certeza, Mendoza & Binay Law Office in a statement.
RELATED STORIES
De Lima: TRO on Binay has no legal effect , Peña is acting Mayor
Junjun Binay includes Ombudsman Morales, De Lima in contempt petition
