Senate to probe Binay’s corruption as vice president – Trillanes
IT’S not just Jejomar Binay’s deeds as former Makati mayor that would be under the scrutiny of the Senate Blue Ribbon subcommittee when it resumes its hearings next week, but also his alleged corruption as Vice President, according to Senator Antonio Trillanes IV.
Trillanes said it was important to focus on Binay’s alleged crimes as he could be one of the country’s biggest problems.
Binay, who is also the administration’s housing czar, earlier said he expected his critics to step up their attacks and to continue the “lies” against him to destroy the people’s support for him. Binay has made no secret of his plan to run for president in 2016.
“Vice President Binay is one of the biggest problems that the country would face so we need to give him the necessary attention. Otherwise, he would flourish, he will abuse and rape the country,” Trillanes told reporters in a phone patch interview.
He also said the new issues to be tackled in the Senate hearing would touch on the Vice President’s actions both as Vice President and as Makati Mayor.
The Vice President’s son Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin Binay, who was city councilor when his father ruled the city, would also be involved, he said.
Article continues after this advertisement“That family is a syndicate,” the senator added.
Article continues after this advertisementTrillanes, who had initiated the Senate probe into Binay’s issues, also blasted yesterday the Court of Appeals ruling that stopped the preventive suspension of Mayor Binay.
The Ombudsman ordered the preventive suspension of Mayor Binay in connection with the investigation of alleged irregularities in the construction of the Makati City Hall Building II, the first issue tackled in the Senate subcommittee hearings. The building was first constructed when the Vice President was mayor, and completed when his son took over his post.
“That is proof that our justice system is corrupt,” Trillanes told reporters.
According to him, he had received information that the Binays spent big money to secure the injunction against the suspension order from the appellate court.
“One of these days, we would expose them: who had fronted for them, who they had talked to, how much they paid. Eventually, we will bring that all out,” he said.
He also said there was nothing to debate about the Ombudsman’s administrative suspension of Mayor Binay as it was just a ministerial matter on its part.
The senator also supported the Ombudsman’s decision to challenge the Court of Appeals’ ruling before the Supreme Court, and said he hoped the tribunal could cleanse the judiciary’s ranks.
“I’m hoping the Supreme Court will save the day for the self-respect and dignity and integrity of the justice system,” he said.
Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III, the Blue Ribbon subcommittee chair, also supported the Ombudsman’s decision to challenge the appellate court’s rulings.
Pimentel, who said the ruling would stabilize the situation in Makati temporarily, nevertheless said the appellate court’s decision should be followed first.
“But at the same time, since the Ombudsman feels that the preliminary injunction was granted with grave abuse of discretion, the Ombudsman should have this immediately reviewed by the Supreme Court and ask for a TRO,” Pimentel said.
In a phone interview, he also wondered why preventive suspension order of the Ombudsman was challenged.
He noted that the suspension was not a penalty, but the “self-defense of the state.”
An official’s temporary suspension is implemented to prevent the possibility of him or her tampering with the evidence, he explained. He added that the official, once cleared of misconduct, would be given backwages.
“Public office is a public trust,” he said.
“Why the vehement resistance [to the preventive suspension order]?” he added.
Pimentel also said the Office of the Ombudsman should review its rules. He said its charter stated that its findings and decisions are appealable to the Supreme Court, but it drafted new rules allowing its decisions to be challenged before the Court of Appeals.
The law also allows the Ombudsman to modify its rules. AC