SC to hear Ombudsman petition vs CA in Binay case

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments on Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales’ petition against Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr.’s plea in the Court of Appeals to stop his suspension by the Ombudsman in connection with the alleged overpricing of the Makati City Hall Building II. INQUIRER FILE PHOTOS

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments on Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales’ petition against Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr.’s plea in the Court of Appeals to stop his suspension by the Ombudsman in connection with the alleged overpricing of the Makati City Hall Building II.

Court spokesperson Theodore Te said the oral arguments will be held at 2 p.m. on April 14 in Baguio City, where the high court magistrates are holding their annual summer sessions. The proceedings will be livestreamed through the high court’s website.

Morales had filed the petition for certiorari in late March, asking the Supreme Court to stop Binay’s certiorari plea in the appellate court to stop his suspension by the Ombudsman while under investigation for corruption.

However, the appellate court had in the meantime granted the Binay petition, issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) last March 16, but not before the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) had served the suspension order against Binay and sworn into office Vice Mayor Romulo “Kid” Peña as acting mayor of Makati.

Issued ‘too late’

Citing the Ombudsman’s independence in undertaking administrative investigations of erring officials, Morales’ petition said the appellate court had committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing a TRO holding Binay’s six-month suspension in abeyance.

The Ombudsman argued that the TRO was issued too late as the suspension order on Binay had already been served hours earlier.

This was also the position of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima who issued an opinion on the issue at the request of the DILG, saying that the TRO was moot as the Ombudsman’s suspension order had been served and an acting mayor had been sworn in.

For their pains, Morales, De Lima, the DILG, Peña and several police officers were impleaded in a second, separate petition that Binay has filed, asking that they be cited in contempt for refusing to honor the TRO.

On Monday, the appellate court erased all doubts about its intent, issuing a writ of preliminary injunction in Binay’s favor. The writ extended the 60-day TRO and placed Binay’s suspension on hold until the court has ruled with finality on his certiorari petition.

READ: Junjun Binay’s camp heaves sigh of relief over CA order

TRO clarified

De Lima on Tuesday said she was accepting the appellate court’s Monday ruling which she said clarified the TRO issued in Binay’s favor.

In a statement, De Lima said the court’s resolution issuing the writ clarified the intent of the earlier TRO on the acts that were subject to restraint.

“It appears the court made the clarification precisely because the earlier TRO was subject to several interpretations, given the intervening events which affected its effectivity,” she said.

In issuing the writ, the Court of Appeals set aside the Ombudsman and the DILG’s arguments by saying the TRO restored the status quo before the suspension order was issued and that the courts did have the authority to restrain interlocutory orders from the Ombudsman, such as the preventive suspension orders.

“With the writ of injunction issued being clearer on the status quo sought to be preserved, the intent of the Court of Appeals is less open to any further interpretation,” De Lima said.

“As stated by the Ombudsman, the remedy now is to appeal the issuance of the writ to the Supreme Court. I think this is now the proper procedure in questioning the injunction. In the meantime, the party respondents are bound by the [writ],” she added.