Binay camp sees ‘moral victory’ in SC decision
VICE PRESIDENT Jejomar Binay (right) and his son Junjun Binay MARIANNE BERMUDEZ/INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
The camp of Vice President Jejomar Binay is still claiming a “moral victory” even though the Supreme Court has declared moot his son ex-Makati Mayor Junjun Binay’s challenge to the latter’s suspension from office by the Ombudsman, citing his dismissal.
Rico Quicho, the Vice President’s spokesperson for political affairs, said Thursday the high court ruling on Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales’ bid to stop the Court of Appeals (CA) proceedings on the mayor’s plea against his suspension was still favorable to the younger Binay, as it upheld the authority of the courts to review decisions and actions by the Office of the Ombudsman.
“The Supreme Court decision in the case involving Makati Mayor Junjun Binay is a moral victory. It vindicates the position of the mayor that his suspension was invalid and unlawful,” Quicho said in a statement.
Released Thursday, the high court en banc decision upheld the CA’s issuance of an injunction against Binay’s suspension, ruling that the appellate court was right and did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in applying the condonation doctrine in the case.
Under the condonation doctrine, administrative liability is extinguished by reelection.
In the same breath, the high tribunal decided to abandon the controversial doctrine prospectively, making Binay’s case the last time it was legally invoked.
The Supreme Court said the doctrine, which first entered Philippine jurisprudence in 1959, was “bereft of legal basis.”
The high tribunal directed the appellate court to rule on the merits of Binay’s plea for certiorari or review, telling the CA the case should be thrown out for being moot as the mayor had been dismissed as of Oct. 9.
What the Binay camp welcomed, however, was the court’s invalidation of provisions of Sec. 14 of the 1989 Ombudsman Act which bars courts, except the Supreme Court, from reviewing its orders and decisions.
“The decision is a reaffirmation that under a democracy, the acts of agents of government can be reviewed by the courts,” said Quicho.
“No government agency or entity should be excluded from the principle of checks and balances since this will encourage and even foster abuse of power, especially against political opponents of the ruling party,” he said.
The Supreme Court ruling deemed paragraph 1 of Sec. 14 of the law, which allows only the high court to issue an injunction against Ombudsman investigations, as “ineffective until the court gives its consent.”
Paragraph 2 was declared unconstitutional. The provision “prohibits any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman,” except through the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the Binay camp said it received information the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) “intends to file a civil forfeiture case” against the Vice President and his family.
Quicho said this is only meant to destroy the Binay name. The Vice President has been decrying investigations into alleged hidden wealth and allegations of involvement in anomalies as a demolition job ahead of the 2016 elections.
“[W]e have been informed a last ditch effort will be made to tarnish the good name of the Vice President and his family using yet again another government agency, the Anti-Money Laundering Council,” the spokesperson said.
“This involves the filing of a civil forfeiture case despite a clear legal prohibition against such acts during the election period. This provision was included in the Anti-Money Laundering Act precisely to prevent abusing the powers of the AMLC for political harassment,” he said.
Quicho cited Sec. 16 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, which bans civil forfeiture “to the prejudice of a candidate for an electoral office during an election period.”
He said the AMLC was “highly partisan,” adding that it has served to “attack and discredit opponents even if it contravenes its own rules and existing laws protecting the rights of individuals.”
