INQUIRER PHOTO / NIÑO JESUS ORBETA
Former vice president Jejomar Binay Sr. has asked the Sandiganbayan to modify its terms for conditional arraignment, a required procedure before the anti-graft court rules on his travel motion to join an Israel pilgrimage this May.
Binay attended the scheduled hearing at the Sandiganbayan Third Division on Wednesday as his lawyers argued for the court to modify the conditions under conditional arraignment.
An accused is required to be conditionally arraigned before a court could rule on the accused’s motion for leave. Conditional arraignment allows the court to have jurisdiction over the accused.
Pressed by Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang for an “extraordinary reason” to prompt the court to do away with its standard procedure, Binay’s lawyer Joseph Castillo said Binay was investigated by the Ombudsman even when he was a sitting vice president and an impeachable officer.
Castillo said Binay would have wanted to add a provision that his conditional arraignment would be “nullified” upon his return to the country.
Castillo said Binay does not want to prejudice his plan to file a motion to quash by being conditionally arraigned.
But Tang said the conditional arraignment does not prejudice an accused’s right to seek other remedies.
The prosecution said such a condition would also be “impractical” because Binay would be required to be conditionally arraigned every time he seeks to travel abroad.
Tang said the court does not want to treat the accused differently by giving a preferential treatment to a former vice president.
“The court wants to render justice equally to all litigants,” Tang said.
In the end, the court gave Binay’s camp until Friday to put into writing his request to modify his conditional arraignment, and for the prosecution three days upon receipt of the motion to file a comment.
Binay’s camp may file its final reply to the prosecution’s comment until next week Friday, April 28.
In an interview with reporters after the hearing, Binay said he would be attending a pilgrimage with his family due to “religious beliefs” and not just because of family bonding.
He said his son, dismissed Makati mayor Jejomar “Junjun” Binay Jr., would no longer be joining the pilgrimage as the latter will attend to his children.
Binay Jr. filed a motion withdrew his earlier motion for leave to join the pilgrimage, citing “pressing matters concerning his children.”
The Office of the Special Prosecutor under the Ombudsman opposed the two Binays’ request for leave to travel abroad for a spiritual journey in Israel from May 15 to 29.
READ: Gov’t lawyers oppose Binays’ bid to leave PH, cite pending raps
The prosecution said the Binay father and son are going on a pilgrimage with the rest of the family, including the matriarch Dr. Elenita Binay, who also faces graft and malversation cases before two divisions in the Sandiganbayan.
This means the three Binays would be abroad despite pending cases in the country, making them flight risks, the prosecution said.
“They bought ought to be considered as a flight risk. Not only are they travelling with immediate family members who happen to be in a similar situation as they are; both accused also failed to show other personal and professional reasons that will compel them to return to the country,” the prosecution said.
The Binay father and son both face malversation, graft and falsification charges over the alleged overpriced Makati car park building.
The said pilgrimage would be led by Father Francis Gustilo, the Pilgrimage Chaplain and former Father Provincial of the Salesian Fathers in the Philippines.
Father Gustilo is also the spiritual facilitator of the Binays’ regular Tuesday Bible meetings at Don Bosco Center in Makati.
In his travel motion, Binay Sr. said he is almost 75 years old and a family man who “believes this pilgrimage to the Holy Land is an exceptional case for a devout Catholic.”
READ: Ex-VP Binay, son seek court permit to go on Israel pilgrimage
The Binays also said they have no intention to flee their charges.
The three Binays are charged before the Sandiganbayan with graft and malversation over alleged anomalies when they served in turns as Makati mayor.
Binay Sr. was formally charged after he stepped down from his post, and after his defeat in the 2016 presidential elections.
Binay Sr. and Binay Jr. are co-accused in the graft, malversation and falsification of public documents charges in connection with the anomalous construction of the P2.2 billion Makati car park building.
READ: Citizen Binay faces graft, malversation, falsification raps over Makati parking building | Junjun Binay charged with graft, document falsification over carpark building
While Binay Sr. was charged for allegedly rigging the first three phases of the building when he was Makati mayor. Binay Jr. was charged for phases IV and V of the building when he succeeded his father in the city hall.
Binay Sr. served as Makati mayor from 1988 to 1998 and 2001 to 2010. He was elected vice president in 2010. Binay Jr. was Makati mayor in 2010 until he was dismissed from service in 2015 due to the charges.
READ: Ombudsman orders dismissal of Junjun Binay
Binay Sr.’s daughters Abby is now Makati mayor while Nancy is senator.
Binay Sr.’s wife Elenita, who served as mayor from 1998 to 2001, faces graft and malversation raps before the Sandiganbayan Third Division over alleged irregularities in the procurement of hospital beds worth P36.43 million in 2001 and P8.83 million worth of dry heat sterilizers in 2000 for the Ospital ng Makati.
She secured victory in her three graft cases.
The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division granted Dr. Binay’s demurrer to evidence in her P21.7-million graft case over the alleged overpricing of furniture for the city hall in 2000.
READ: Sandigan junks Elenita Binay’s P21.7-million graft case
Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division acquitted her of graft in the alleged overprice of P13.25-million purchase of furniture for the city hall in 1999.
READ: Sandigan acquits Elenita Binay, 2 others in overpricing case
In 2011, the Sandiganbayan Second Division dismissed a graft case against her over allegedly overpriced furniture worth P58.04 million purchased from October to December 2000.
She still faces another graft case in the Fifth Division over the anomalous purchase of furniture and fixtures worth P72.06 million in 1999./ac
READ: Mercado finally takes witness stand in Elenita Binay graft case