The Supreme Court has denied the appeal of Budget and Management Undersecretary Mario Relampagos for the issuance of a temporary restraining order to stop the Sandiganbayan from hearing the graft cases filed against him.
Relampagos was charged with misuse of multi-billion-peso Priority Development Assistance Fund or pork barrel funds of lawmakers.
In its en banc session on Tuesday, the SC junked Relampago’s plea for TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction, SC spokesperson Theodore Te said.
But the Court directed the respondents — Sandiganbayan and Office of the Ombudsman — to comment on the petition within 10 days from receipt of notice.
Relampagos asked the SC to issue an injunction against the anti-graft court’s Third Division which is handling the graft cases filed against him and other respondents in the pork barrel scam allegedly perpetrated by businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles.
Relampagos assailed the anti-graft court’s denial of his petition challenging the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause against him in connection with the pork barrel scam.
The Ombudsman has indicted Relampagos and his staff, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare and Rosario Nunez for allegedly acting as Napoles’ contact in the DBM to facilitate the release of Special Allotment Release Orders and Notice of Cash Allocations for the lawmaker’s pork barrel allocation.
They were among the 25 government employees who allegedly helped funnel the pork barrel allocation of lawmakers to bogus non-government organizations established by Napoles.
Relampagos is the highest official of a government agency charged so far in the PDAF anomalies.
Pork barrel scam whistleblower Benhur Luy have repeatedly mentioned in the Senate hearings that Paule, Bare and Nunez were his contacts at the DBM in following up the release of the SAROs for Napoles’ NGOs.
Relampago’s signature was in the SAROs that facilitated the release of the lawmaker’s pork barrel allocation.
However, DBM official insisted his and his staff’s innocence, saying he did not even know Luy or Napoles.
He and his three staff were charged with 16 graft cases but the anti-graft court dismissed eight of the charges after it found out that his signature did not appeal in all the SAROs attributed to him.