Florin Hilbay. Screengrab from https://law.upd.edu.ph
BAGUIO CITY, Philippines—The Court of Appeals has no authority to issue writ of preliminary injunction like the one issued against an order of six months suspension of Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay, government lawyer Florin Hilbay told the Supreme Court during Tuesday’s oral argument.
READ: CA stops 3 gov’t agencies from suspending Junjun Binay
“Does the Court of Appeals have statutory authority from Congress to issue a writ of preliminary injunction on [orders] of the Ombudsman? No, because we cannot find any statutory authority with such express provision,” Solicitor General Hilbay said.
Hilbay said while under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, the Court of Appeals has a general jurisdiction including the authority to issue ancilliary writs, it has been limited by Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act.
Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act provides that “no writ of injunction shall be issued by any court to delay an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman under this Act, unless there is a prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.
“No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure question of law.”
However, Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza asked Hilbay if there are any legislative supports to show Congress’ intent to limit the powers of the appeals court, the government lawyer said “we look at Section 14, there is not a lot of discussion with that particular intent.”
Jardeleza said it is the first time that the Ombudsman has advanced such an interpretation withdrawing power of certiorari, rule and mandamus (Rule 65 of the Rules of Court) of the Court of Appeals.
He said as early as 2001 in several rulings, the Supreme Court reiterated that Rule 65 petitions against orders of the Ombudsman should go to the Court of Appeals.
“If, as you claim, Congress intend to withdrew from the Court of Appeals the jurisdiction over Rule 65, then, why did Congress not insist in this interpretation of ours by enacting a law specifically [amending the power of the Court of Appeals,” Jardeleza asked.
Binay went to the Court of Appeals after he was suspended for six months by the Office of the Ombudsman.
READ: Appellate court gives Makati mayor Binay 60-day relief
The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order and eventually a writ of preliminary injunction against the implementation of the order.
The Ombudsman went to the Supreme Court to nullify the Court of Appeals order.
The oral argument is still ongoing. Hilbay is still being questioned by the high court justices. TVJ
RELATED STORIES
Ombudsman asks SC: Stop CA order on Binay case
SC set to tackle Ombudsman bid to nullify CA TRO on Binay suspension