Trillanes to Junjun Binay: Don’t be onion-skinned

MANILA, Philippines – If you can’t take the heat, get out of government. 

This was one of the arguments of Senator Antonio Trillanes IV as he asked the justice department to dismiss the libel complaint that the son of Vice President Jejomar Binay filed against him. 

Trillanes filed the counter-affidavit on Thursday, August 13, saying there was no malice in his statements that Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr’s camp allegedly paid two Court of Appeals (CA) justices to issue a writ of preliminary injunction on the mayor’s suspension. 

“Being a public official and public figure, complainant should expect public criticism of his actions and actuations and in the words of the Supreme Court, should not be too onion-skinned,” Trillanes said in the 43-page document. 

The staunch critic of the Binay political dynasty said his statements on alleged bribery and corruption were in line with his duty as a senator, providing him parliamentary immunity. 

Trillanes also invoked public interest, free speech, and inter-departmental courtesy. 

The senator was responding to the libel case the younger Binay filed in April over Trillanes’ media statements that he will expose the Binays for spending “big money” to secure an injunction on the suspension order against Mayor Binay. 

In a resolution he later filed, Trillanes said that CA justices Jose Reyes Jr and Francisco Acosta of the 6th  Division allegedly got a total of P50 million ($1.12 million) from lawyer Pancho Villaraza. 

The Ombudsman issued a 6-month preventive suspension against Binay over the alleged overpriced Makati parking building. The CA stopped the suspension but Mayor Binay eventually stepped down in July after failing to secure an injunction in a separate case over the supposedly overpriced building Makati Science High School Building. 

In the counter-affidavit, Trillanes pointed out that Mayor Binay is not just the chief executive of the country’s financial district but also the son of the Vice President, the opposition’s standard-bearer for the 2016 polls. 

The lawmaker added that he should not be held liable for libel or contempt of court.

“To consider respondent’s actions as libelous would be to set a dangerous precedent as this would result in making members of the judiciary…immune from public criticism and from being held to account by the public even in the face of possible appalling and atrocious actions and/or actuations,” the senator said. 

‘Public duty, public concern’ 

The counter-affidavit did not detail how Trillanes was able to obtain the information, following claims of wiretapping. 

Trillanes said that an “informant” approached him about the alleged transaction. He found the information “credible” because of the “bona fides” of the source, and details of the deal. 

“Respondent sought to verify and/or validate the said information through other resource persons and was able to obtain confirmation from another credible source. In fact, respondent was even able to learn how the alleged perpetrators were able to secure the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction in the case after the Department of Local Government (DILG) initially refused to recognize the TRO issued in the subject,” the document stated. 

Trillanes focused his defense on his role as senator, having oversight and investigation functions. The former navy officer also stressed that he has been pushing for anti-corruption and reform even before he was first elected in 2007. 

He then cited the resolution he filed for the Senate to investigate the bribery claims, and the CA’s efforts to reconstitute its ethics committee to get into the bottom of the accusations. 

“Contrary to the self-serving assertions of petitioner, respondent made his assertions as a responsible public official in the course of performing his public duties, with the intention of having the same officially investigated by the proper public institutions,” Trillanes said. 

Trillanes pointed out that he provided names and details of the alleged transaction only in his resolution and not in media interviews. 

“The incident, involving as it does a matter of public concern, it was only proper and appropriate for respondent to disclose the story to the public, as well as to respond to questions posed by reporters relating thereto. Hence, the element of malice in this case is missing,” he said. 

In invoking free speech, he cited the landmark US case of New York Times v. Sullivan:

“Debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” 

Senate ethics committee, not courts 

Even assuming that he was guilty of libel, Trillanes said it should be the Senate ethics committee, not the courts, that must hold him accountable. 

“This is part and parcel of what is referred to as inter-departmental courtesy or inter-departmental comity, which arises from the doctrine of separation of powers between the 3 great branches of Government.”

Still, Trillanes insisted that his statements were not libelous because there was no element of publication.  His argument is that it was the media, not him, that decided to publicize his resolution. 

The senator also accused Binay of forum shopping for filing the libel case along with a petition for contempt before the CA containing the same allegations. 

“Since the presumption [of malice] obviously does not exist in cases involving public officials or public figures like the complainant, the dismissal of the instant complaint is clearly in order.” – Rappler.com