A justices also grilled Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Gerard Mosquera for questioni

ng the jurisdiction of the appellate court and insisting on the non-applicabilit

y of the principle of condonation in the case.
Mosquera countered the claim of Binay s lawyers, led by Claro Certeza, that the al
leged acts covered by the ombudsman probe were committed during the mayor s previo
us term and had been condoned by his re-election in the 2013 polls.
He argued that condonation should be determined in full-blown administrative pro
ceedings of the anti-graft office and that Binay should have just raised the iss
ue by appealing the six-month preventive suspension order before elevating the c
ase to the CA.
He added that the suspension is a preventive measure to protect the integrity of
the ombudsman investigation and make sure that the official would not use his p
owers to tamer evidence and influence potential witnesses.
Associate Justice Francisco Acosta, however, told the ombudsman official that th
e application of condonation does not need investigation as it simply requires d
etermination of dates of elections and acts allegedly committed.
If condonation needs finding of administrative liability, then there should be no
preventive suspension yet, the justice pointed out in rebutting Mosquera s argumen
t.
Associate Justice Eduardo Peralta Jr., for his part, lectured Mosquera on jurisp
rudence on the jurisdiction of the CA on actions of the ombudsman. ra claimed th
at the ongoing ombudsman probe covers two checks for payment of builders of the
Makati City Hall Building 2 and an P11-million contract for the architectural de
sign of the building signed by Binay in his current term, which therefore cannot
be considered condoned.
Certeza argued that such acts should still be covered by the condonation rule si
nce they stemmed from contracts originally forged even before Binay was elected
as mayor.
Citing previous cases and SC rulings, he stressed that the determination of liab
ilities should be based on when the contracts were forged.
He explained that Binay just signed the checks for payment of the developers as p
art of the implementation of the existing contracts.
At the end of the three-hour hearing, the CA submitted for resolution the petiti
on for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction, which would extend for an ind
efinite period the temporary restraining order (TRO) it earlier issued on the su
spension order.
Certeza also asked the court to clarify the effectivity of its TRO, citing confu
sion in the city hall where Binay and Vice Mayor Romulo Pea are both serving as m
ayors.
The justices did not immediately address the plea, which will be tackled in a se
parate petition for contempt that will be heard in the continuation of the heari
ng at 2 p.m. today.