Justice on Binay suspension: ‘A difficult case because it’s political’

BAGUIO CITY, Philippines – Does the Court of Appeals have the power to stop an administrative suspension issued by the Office of the Ombudsman?

It’s such a simple case, argued Solicitor General Florin Hilbay during the Supreme Court oral arguments in Baguio City on Tuesday, April 14. 

Look at Section 14 of Republic Act 6770, Hilbay repeatedly told the justices on the first day of oral arguments, arguing that it is expressly prohibited in the law that created the anti-graft office in 1989. 

Section 14. Restrictions. No writ of injunction shall be issued by any court to delay an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman under this Act, unless there is a prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. 

But Associate Justice Marvic Leonen told Hilbay when he repeated the argument during his questioning:

“We, of course, appreciate that you see it as a simple case. But we would not have called for oral arguments in Baguio City had it not been a difficult case and a complex one at that. Of course, you would agree with me that this is a difficult case not only because it is complex. It is also difficult because it is political. Therefore, we have to be careful in laying down our legal premises so as not to be misinterpreted by the public at large,” added Leonen.

The justice’s statement brings into the Supreme Court oral arguments the highly charged political climate surrounding the case before them because it involves the son of the frontrunner in the 2016 presidential elections, Vice President Jejomar Binay, and his presumptive rival, Interior Secretary Manuel Roxas II, who implemented the suspension order.

The suspension order is as much about the father as it is about his son. It is based on the allegedly overpriced carpark building, a project that the Vice President started. It is also the subject of a Senate probe that pulled down his survey numbers.

Corruption in the courts

Leonen recognized the importance of the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman – to stamp out corruption in government – and the need to give the office the powers to do its job in the Philippine setting.

This is where the justice framed the pending issue around the pervasive corruption in the Philippines among politicians and court officers, aiding the Solicitor General’s argument in upholding the need to empower the Ombudsman to issue a preventive suspension.

“Without a preventive suspension, there is a possiblity that a powerful official that has won an election will be able to hide the records, talk to the witness, use its power. Those that drafted the constitution envisioned the reality that in our country those in political power have power vis-a-vis these kinds of investigations,” Leonen said.

Still, Leonen raised other arguments that challenged the Solicitor General’s position. Why is the Office of the Ombudsman only now – 26 years since the law was passed – fighting for its interpretation of its powers?

Leonen also brought into the oral arguments claims made by Senator Antonio Trillanes IV that Binay bribed a CA Justice who issued favorable resolutions. Citing “reliable sources,” Trillanes named CA justices Jose Reyes Jr and Francisco Acosta as having allegedly gotten a total of P50 million ($1.12 million) to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction that blocked the Ombudsman’s preventive suspension against Binay.

The senator, who has publicly professed to block a Binay presidency, took the flak from several camps, however, over his failure to provide evidence.

“Will you agree with me counsel that it is very difficult to root out corruption in this country? It’s very difficult to root out corruption because it is easy to allege such as a P50 million paid to a Court of Appeals justice but it is very difficult to prove unless there is somebody who comes forward to actually prove it,” said Leonen. 

The courts have long faced allegations of corruption. In 2012, then Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona was impeached and removed for failing to truthfully declare his wealth. 

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales herself played a key role in Corona’s conviction. She displayed the great powers of her office and saved the case of the House prosecution panel when she was able to get around the bank secrecy law to expose the dollar accounts of Renato Corona. 

Political persecution vs Binays?

The lawyer of Mayor Binay, Claro Certeza, found Leonen’s statements sympathetic to them. 

“It is true. I agree. There is really politics involved here. It will take the justices of the Supreme Court to make such an astute observation. Unlike ibang venue, batuhan ng puitk. Dito talagang dinidinig ang magkabilang panig,” Certeza said. 

The Binay camp has questioned the Senate probe into the same corruption allegation, calling it a political ploy to derail the Vice President’s bid for Malacañang.

The Binay camp has also filed a libel case against Trillanes.

“Nakakalungkot talaga ngayon, false allegations. It can destory the institution. Hindi ko alam kung bakit nila ginagawa yun. Kung meron talagang ebidensiya, ilabas niyo. Hindi dahil talo kayo, sasabihin niyo naglagay ang kabila,” Certeza added. (It’s very sad, these false allegations…I don’t know why they’re doing it. If there’s really evidence, bring them out. Not because you lost you’d accuse the other party of bribery.)

Certeza said the media statements of Trillanes are not covered by immunity. – Rappler.com