Binay blasts Ombudsman’s selective justice anew, cites Abaya case

VICE President Jejomar Binay blasted the Office of the Ombudsman anew for selective justice, citing a decision sparing a Cabinet official from indictment for the Metro Rail Transit (MRT-3) mess.

In his counter-affidavit filed before the Ombudsman, Binay said Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales is biased against him when she announced to media that the evidence against him for graft is strong.

Binay said the Ombudsman is practicing selective justice when its investigating team found probable cause to indict Binay for graft for alleged involvement in the rigged bidding for the Makati City Hall Building II construction, and its fact-finding team recommended graft over the anomalies in the Makati Science High School Building.

This while the antigraft unit dismissed for lack of merit the graft complaint against Transportation Secretary Joseph Abaya over the anomalous MRT maintenance contract with Philippine Trans Rail Management and Services Corp. (PH Trams)-CB&T joint venture. Abaya is the Liberal Party’s acting president.

Sacked MRT-3 General Manager Al Vitangcol was the one indicted for graft for awarding the contract without public bidding to PH Trans where his uncle-in-law is an incorporator.

Binay said the jurisprudence in “Arias vs Sandiganbayan” said an official cannot be presumed part of a conspiracy by merely signing documents.

Binay said this was applied to Abaya in the MRT contract mess, but not to him in his graft cases.

Binay also slammed the Ombudsman for petitioning to the Supreme Court the reversal of the “Aguinaldo doctrine,” which Binay’s lawyers had cited in questioning the preventive suspension order against Binay’s son Makati Mayor Junjun Binay as they both face graft investigation.

Binay said the Ombudsman also practiced double standards when it upheld the Aguinaldo doctrine in a decision dismissing the administrative liability of former Muntinlupa mayor Aldrin San Pedro by virtue of his reelection.

The Ombudsman has the administrative power to preventively suspend an official facing charges. But an official may not be suspended by virtue of reelection, following a doctrine that condones the administrative liability of an elected public official for a past offense once that official is reelected for a fresh term.

“It is no longer surprising that well-settled jurisprudence is applied by the Ombudsman to other government officials (e.g., condonation doctrine in connection with the administrative case of the Mayor of Muntinlupa and the Arias doctrine generously applied to DOTC Secretary Abaya) but is brazenly disregarded and distorted if the case involves VP Binay or any of his family members,” Binay said.

“This is selective justice exemplified,” he added.

Binay maintained that the evidence against him would not stand in court, citing the allegations of former Makati general services head Mario Hechanova purportedly told to him by the late engineer Nelson Morales that Binay directed the rigging of the bidding for the project.

“To reiterate, the allegation that VP Binay instructed Engineer Morales to rig the bidding deserves scant consideration. This claim is based on hearsay evidence; worse, is attributed to a dead person, which will not and should not be accepted by any fair and independent judicial or quasi-judicial body,” Binay said.

“There is no evidence at all that will stand in any court of law to indict, much more convict, VP Binay of the charges filed by the Special Panel of Investigators. Yet, not only did the Ombudsman entertain these baseless charges, it persistently declared in media that the evidence against VP Binay is allegedly strong,” he added