Ombudsman may have prejudged Junjun’s case, says lawyer

OMBUDSMAN Conchita Carpio-Morales may have prejudged the case of Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay on the Makati Science High School issue, a lawyer said Thursday.

Atty. Vicente Joyas, outgoing Integrated Bar of the Philippines national president, said it was “very unfair” for the Ombudsman to announce in public that there is strong evidence against Binay.

“That is a clear case of pre-judgment. A judge is not allowed to discuss in public the merits of the cases pending before him or her. Ombudsman Morales is exercising a quasi-judicial function, necessarily the rule must apply to her,” said Joyas.

“In court cases, when and where judges made pre-judgment motion for inhibition and re-raffle to another are available. But how can that be done in case of Ombudsman Morales when she is the only Ombudsman,” he added.

At a press conference, Morales said the evidence against Mayor Binay is “very strong.”

“So ano gagawin namin? Tutulala? Matatakot ka? No way!” she said.

But Morales denied that there is “selective justice.”

She said the dismissal of Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief Alan Purisima, a close friend of President Benigno Aquino III, is the best argument against selective justice.

But Atty. Levito Baligod, former lawyer of the whistleblowers in the P10-billion pork barrel fund scam, maintained that the “selective justice” was apparent in this administration.

He said he understood if the filing of the second batch of cases related to the Priority Development Assistance Fund or pork barrel scam was getting delayed due to personnel constraints.

“But the delay in the filing of the third batch by the DOJ with the Office of the Ombudsman is unreasonable and indicative of a breach in the rule of law,” said Baligod.

“It is a clear case of partiality to favor its allies, especially in the light of Secretary Leila de Lima’s pronouncement way back on June 13, 2014 that the evidence is already complete and ready for filing,” he added.