THE Court of Appeals rebuked state lawyers for failing to properly advise Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales and Interior and Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas on the preventive suspension they served on Makati City Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr.
During the CA hearing on the contempt charges Binay filed against Morales and Roxas, magistrates of the appellate court grilled Senior State Solicitor Raymund Rigodon for arguing that the temporary restraining order the CA filed against the suspension was invalid.
Justices of the CA Sixth Division grilled Senior State Solicitor Raymund Rigodon after he claimed that Morales and Roxas could not be held in contempt for ignoring the TRO, issued last March 16, because the court order was supposedly invalid.
Associate Justice Francisco Acosta asked Rigodon what his grounds for arguing that the court order was already moot because it was issued after the notice of Binay’s six-month suspension was served, but Rigodon failed to answer and instead asked for more time to prepare an answer.
Acosta also challenged Rigodon to cite any jurisprudence to support the argument that the CA has no power to issue a TRO on the preventive suspension orders of the Ombudsman, but Rigodon could not provide a single court ruling.
When Rigodon argued that the DILG should have not been impleaded in the contempt case as the agency enjoys state immunity from suits, Acosta rebuffed him and said it was Roxas who was being charged of contempt and not the DILG as an agency.
“It is your interpretation that TRO is invalid, that’s why you did not properly advice your client?” Acosta stressed.
CA’s Sixth Division chairman, Associate Justice Jose Reyes Jr. sided with Acosta’s view and told Rigodon that “as a lawyer you could have been prudent in giving advice to your client.”
Reyes also scrutinized the legal opinion of Morales that the TRO was already moot and unenforceable, which he believes “could have also triggered the defiance (of the TRO).”
Reyes also questioned the motive of the manifestation filed with the court last March 17, which espoused the Ombudsman’s legal opinion, included a conclusion that the TRO was moot.
The justice made the same comment on the similar legal opinion of Justice Sec. Leila de Lima.
For his part, Associate Justice Eduardo Peralta Jr. grilled Rigodon why he did not advise Roxas to seek clarification from the court instead of asking for De Lima’s opinion.
“Why did it not aver with the public respondents to ask the court to clarify the parameters of the TRO?” he asked.
In the three-hour hearing, Binay’s lawyer Claro Certeza prodded the CA justice to cite the officials in contempt for their alleged “contumacious” acts in defiance of the TRO.
Binay’s lawyer stressed that Morales and De Lima both advanced their view that the TRO was moot and unenforceable and complained that Roxas even ordered the police to defy the court order while Peña continues to act as acting mayor despite the TRO.
“Contempt is proper under the circumstances because there’s clearly a defiance of the order. The Ombudsman and Secretary of Justice should be respectful of the law being lawyers that they are. But sadly these two are the ones directly encouraging the defiance,” Certeza lamented.
However, Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Gerard Mosquera, who represented Morales, argued that the Ombudsman could not be cited for contempt since she could only be held criminally liable via impeachment proceedings as provided in the Constitution.
Mosquera added that Morales just issued a legal opinion, which is part of her duty and cannot be considered a contumacious act against the court.
De Lima is also a respondent in the contempt case but did not have representation in the hearing. She was given by the CA a non-extendible period of three days to submit her comment along with Vice Mayor Romulo Peña, who was also not represented.
Nonetheless, the CA required all parties to submit their respective comments, after which, the petition for contempt is deemed submitted for resolution.
When Certeza sought the CA to issue a clarification and reiterate the TRO, Justice Reyes told the Binay’s camp to just wait for the court’s resolution.
While the CA did not give definite deadline, Justice Reyes hinted out that that the ruling will be out “soon.”
The appellate court held the hearing after it granted the plea of Binay for TRO to stop the preventive suspension order issued by the Office of the Ombudsman against him for his role in the alleged anomalous construction of the Makati City Hall building 2.
The CA also tackled the petition for contempt filed by the embattled son of Vice President Jejomar Binay against Carpio – Morales, Roxas, de Lima and Vice Mayor Kid Peña for allegedly “acting in unison in defying (the TRO).”
The Makati City mayor has impleaded Morales and De Lima in the contempt petition after they issued identical opinions that the TRO was moot and academic since it was issued three hours after the suspension was already served and Vice Mayor Peña already took his oath as acting mayor.
Roxas and Peña used their legal opinion as basis for insisting on the effectivity of the suspension order against Binay.
The Ombudsman earlier assailed the CA’s TRO against the suspension of Binay, saying it was already moot and academic, and brought the case before the Supreme Court.
The anti-graft body sought the issuance of TRO to stop the CA’s halt order and stop it from hearing the case.
The SC immediately tackled the petition of Morales – a retired member of the high court – in a special session last Thursday, but deferred ruling on her urgent plea. Instead, the high tribunal required the CA and Mayor Binay to comment on the petition not later than April 6, a day before the justices start their annual summer session in Baguio City.
In issuing the 60-day TRO, the CA cited as basis “the seriousness of the issues raised in the petition for certiorari and the possible repercussions on the electorate who will unquestionably be affected by suspension of their elective official.”
Apart from TRO and writ of preliminary injunction, Binay has asked the appellate court in his petition to also nullify the assailed Ombudsman order after hearing.
Binay claimed that the anti-graft office committed grave abuse of discretion and violated his rights when it “whimsically and capriciously disregarded and violated the foregoing established laws and jurisprudence.”
Petitioner stressed that his signature would not suffice as proof of his alleged involvement in the anomaly, citing a 1995 Supreme Court ruling in Sabiniano vs. CA which stated that a mere signature or approval appearing on a voucher is not enough to sustain a finding of conspiracy among public officials and employees.
The malversation of public funds, graft and falsification charges were filed in July 2014 by lawyer Renato Bondal, who claimed that the construction of the building was overpriced by P862 million. The complaint cited as proof Binay’s signatures that appeared in a disbursement voucher and on the award and purchase/contract for the project.