De Lima: Why me?

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—Justice Secretary Leila de Lima on Friday questioned why suspended Makati Mayor Junjun Binay included her and Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales in the contempt petition he filed against interior department and police officials who implemented the Ombudsman’s six-month suspension order against him.

De Lima maintained that there was no contempt as the temporary restraining order (TRO) that Binay had secured from the appellate court to stop the suspension order while he is under investigation for alleged involvement in the alleged overpricing of the Makati City Hall Building II, had no effect in the first place.

Morales and De Lima have separately said that the TRO was moot, as it was released only after the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) had already served the suspension order on Binay, and that Vice Mayor Romulo “Kid” Peña had already taken his oath as acting mayor.

Contempt petition

Binay earlier filed a contempt petition in the Court of Appeals (CA) against a host of officials, including Interior Secretary Mar Roxas; Peña; Renato Brion, the DILG regional director for Metro Manila; Philippine National Police Special Action Force Director Carmelo Valmoria; Senior Supt. Elmer Jamias, the ground commander of the police deployment at Makati City Hall; and Southern Police District Director Henry Rañola. On Thursday, he amended the contempt petition to include De Lima and Morales as additional respondents.

He accused the officials of colluding to block the enforcement of the TRO which he maintains authorized him to continue to sit as mayor of Makati.

“Why would they want even us to be cited for contempt? My opinion was sought by the DILG as the situation now in Makati needs legal guidance,” De Lima said yesterday.

‘Moot and academic’

“Now, in very simple terms, where is the contempt there when in the first place our position is that [the TRO] is already moot and academic? So if a TRO is moot and academic, what is there to defy?” she said.

Asked if she would file a pleading in her defense, De Lima said: “It really depends on whether the CA will still be minded to require us to comment.”

In a resolution on Friday, the appellate court’s Sixth Division directed the respondents to comment on the petition within an “inextendible period of three days from receipt.”

Associate Justice Jose Reyes Jr. also set a hearing on the contempt plea for March 30.

RELATED STORIES

Junjun Binay wants De Lima, Ombudsman cited for contempt

Junjun Binay includes Ombudsman Morales, De Lima in contempt petition