COURT of Appeals Justices grilled government counsels on their attempt to justify the six-month preventive suspension issued against Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay.
During Monday’s oral argument, Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Gerard A. Mosquera said the suspension was preventive in nature so as not to disrupt the formal investigation being conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman and not to intimidate witnesses against the Mayor.
Binay was preventively suspended for six months after he was subjected to a formal preliminary investigation for possible violation of the anti-graft law and malversation in connection with the alleged overpriced Makati Parking Building.
Binay took the case to the Court of Appeals who issued a temporary restraining order against the suspension order.
But the Ombudsman, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) said the TRO is no longer applicable because the suspension order has been served.
Atty. Claro Certeza, Binay’s counsel, argued that the Mayor cannot be put on preventive suspension because the alleged violation cited by the Ombudsman occurred in his previous term.
Certeza said following the case of Aguinaldo v. Santos, “a public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term since his re-election to office operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him thereof.”
But Mosquera said “condonation can only kick in if there is a finding of liability.”
“If you assume that there is none [finding of liability], there is no basis for administrative suspension,” Associate Justice Francisco Acosta said.
“If we find that condonation applies [in this case], would you agree that the TRO is valid,” Justice Acosta asked to which Mosquera insisted that the TRO cannot be valid.
On the other hand, Associate Justice Eduardo Peralta Jr. pointed out that there are numerous Supreme Court rulings that recognize the Court of Appeals’ authority to rule over Ombudsman cases.
“Are you aware of Supreme Court rulings taking cognizance of Court of Appeals authority against Ombudsman rulings,” Justice Peralta asked the government counsels.
“I am sure the learned counsel is aware of that,” he added.
Mosquera, as well as Assistant Solicitor General Hermes Ocampo said the issue raised before the Supreme Court by the Office of the Ombudsman was not raised in previous cases.
BACKSTORY: Ombudsman asks SC to nullify CA TRO on Binay suspension
“So, you are asking the Supreme Court to review and reverse these decisions,” Justice Peralta asked.
The appeals court sixth division has concluded the hearing on the restraining order on Binay suspension.
The hearing on the contempt petition will be on Tuesday, March 31.