Mayor Binay’s reelection argument based on assumption – Ombudsman

Buena Bernal

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Mayor Binay’s reelection argument based on assumption – Ombudsman
The condonation doctrine cited by Makati Mayor Junjun Binay assumes that people were aware of his illegal acts at the time they cast their votes to re-elect him

BAGUIO CITY, Philippines – When Makati voters reelected Mayor Erwin Jejomar “Junjun” Binay Jr to his post, were they aware of his alleged misdeeds in relation to the supposedly overpriced car park building in his city?

Under the condonation doctrine, which the mayor is invoking to challenge the 6-month suspension order issued against him by the Ombudsman, his voters are assumed to have been aware of his actions.

The disputed doctrine is a legal defense that absolves reelected officials of liability in administrative charges.

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on Friday, April 17, stressed the word “assumed” when she argued against the use of this doctrine in this case. “The ratio decidendi behind the application of the condonation doctrine allegedly is that the people are assumed – the word is ‘assumed’ – to have known of the misdeeds or the offenses committed by the public officer,” she explained in a chance interview with reporters.

Morales insisted that this doctrine takes into account the principle of informed choice.

In her proposed legislation seeking to impose liability on elected officials for illegal acts they committed in their past terms, Senator Miriam Defender Santiago said that the doctrine of condonation was first cited in the 1959 case of Pascual v Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, which Binay’s lawyers are invoking.

The Aguinaldo doctrine, which goes by the same principle, stems from a 1992 Supreme Court ruling, which reversed the dismissal from public service of former Cagayan Governor Rodolfo Aguinaldo on account of his reelection.

Morales explained the condonation doctrine goes against the anti-corruption stance of the 1987 Constitution.

Awareness of Binay’s case

In Mayor Binay’s case, details of his supposed misdeeds in relation to an allegedly overpriced construction of the Makati car park building only surfaced in media during his present term, which is his second term as mayor.

The building’s construction started during the last mayoral term of his father – now Vice Presdent Jejomar Binay – and finished during the younger Binay’s first mayoral term.

Reelected in 2013, the Makati chief executive is being investigated for criminal complaints of malversation, graft and violation of the procurement law over the allegedly overpriced construction of a Makati city hall building.

His suspension is linked to the administrative charges of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service over the same deal.

A guilty verdict in these administrative cases could mean permanent dismissal from public office and the revocation of one’s civil service eligibility. Settled rulings by Philippine courts cite the controversial legal doctrine in dismissing administrative cases elevated to higher courts.

The doctrine though does not apply to criminal cases against an elected official.

Suspension

Five days after the anti-corruption body announced the start of its preliminary investigation into multiple complaints against the Makati mayor, it ordered the younger Binay’s suspension for 6 months without pay. Binay had refused to step down and even allowed Makati residents to barricade the city hall to prevent law enforcers from removing him from office.

An official is suspended by the Ombudsman in administrative cases pending investigation to prevent him from using his power to frustrate the proceedings, like hiding or destroying evidence or threatening or bribing witnesses. The court does this in criminal cases.

Standing his ground, Binay ran to the the Court of Appeals (CA) and argued that the Ombudsman acted in grave abuse of discretion when it suspended him.

He initially secured a 60-day temporary restraining order (TRO) from the court. The CA later on issued a writ of preliminary injunction, which effectively stops the suspension until the CA resolves Binay’s petition.

Under a fierce leader, the Ombudsman felt its powers were unduly clipped by the TRO.

Matter of jurisdiction

Morales questioned the two CA orders before the SC on March 25.

A jurist and former SC justice herself, Morales challenged the appellate court’s power to intervene in Ombudsman investigations.

The Ombudsman is tasked to resolve administrative cases of erring public officials. It also investigates, approves and files criminal cases against government officials and their co- respondents in court.

The anti-graft body through the Office of the Solicitor-General argued that the CA’s TRO and subsequent writ were “unwarranted intervention” and violation of the Ombudsman’s powers as an independent body.

Binay earlier asked the CA to cite Morales in contempt for publicly speaking against the order. Morales is an impeachable officer, raising the question on whether she can be cited in contempt and forced to leave her post for that reason.

Under the law, an impeachable officer can only be removed from office through impeachment. The Binay camp argues Morales can be fined or imprisoned instead.

A second round of oral arguments is scheduled on Tuesday afternoon, April 21. – Rappler.com

 

Add a comment

Sort by

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

Summarize this article with AI

How does this make you feel?

Loading
Download the Rappler App!