FORMER Makati City Mayor Jejomar Erwin Binay Jr. on Tuesday said he was contemplating filing a complaint against the Office of the Ombudsman following a Court of Appeals resolution reversing the 2015 decision dismissing him and several other city officials and barred them from holding public office in connection with the construction of Makati City Hall Building II.
“That’s something that needs to be discussed with the family and the lawyers,” said Binay.
In a statement, Binay said he and his family was thankful for the CA decision clearing him of administrative liabilities, saying it only proved that the Ombudsman singled out the Binays
for “selective justice” because of politics.”©
“First of all, we thank God because justice [was] served. We also thank the Court of Appeals for being impartial to our case,” said Binay.
When asked about a possible return to political office, Binay said he would rather enjoy for now the time he had for his family and himself.
“©Binay said the Ombudsman had, in other cases, invoked the condonation doctrine in dropping complaints against other elected officials.
But in his case the Ombudsman ignored the doctrine and the decision of the Supreme Court that its decision to junk the doctrine was prospective in nature and did not apply to him.”©
In a 159-page decision written by Associate Justice Edwin Sorongon, the CA reversed the 2015 ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman, saying Binay was still covered by the 2010 Supreme Court decision that reiterated its 1959 condonation doctrine which extinguishes the administrative liability of an elective public official once reelected to the same post.
“©The CA cited the SC’s ruling which states that “this Court’s abandonment of the condonation doctrine should be prospective in application for the reason that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution, until reversed, shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.””©
“When a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a different view is adopted, the new doctrine
should be applied prospectively, and should not apply to parties who had relied on the old
doctrine and acted on the faith thereof,” the CA’s ruling stated, quoting the SC decision.”©
“©Binay had invoked the condonation doctrine when he challenged before the CA the ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman.”©
“©Agreeing with Binay, the CA said the administrative complaint against Binay “pertained to acts which transpired before he was subsequently elected and continued in public office on May 14, 2013.”
“©”©“It is uncontroverted that Binay Jr. served as the city mayor of Makati from June 28, 2010, and was re-elected into the same office on May 14, 2013,” it stated.”©
“©“Considering that the present case was instituted prior to the ruling of the Supreme Court (on Nov. 10, 2015), the condonation doctrine may still be applied,” the CA decision stated.”©
“©“Given the factual circumstances herein and the prevailing jurisprudence, this Court holds that the undisputed and subsequent reelection of Binay Jr. in the year 2013 is a condonation of his administrative liabilities,” it ruled.”©”© “©”©
In July 2015, Mayor Binay vacated his post to serve the six-month preventive suspension order in connection with the alleged irregularities in the construction of Makati City Hall Building II.
The Office of the Ombudsman later came up with a decision dismissing and perpetually disqualifying the young Binay from holding public office.
The Ombudsman acted on the complaints filed by two former village captains—Renato Bondal and Nicolas Enciso.
Bondal, who ran but lost to Binay in the 2013 elections, claimed the City Hall Building 2 was “the most expensive parking building in the entire country.”