Miriam: Binay reelection argument

ludicrous
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago says public officials like Mayor Binay should not be
automatically absolved of crimes by their mere reelection

Ayee Macaraig

Published 7:30 AM, Mar 28, 2015

Updated 5:41 PM, Mar 28, 2015

'CROSS-EYED SIMPLIFICATION.' Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago slams the explanation

of Makati Mayor Junjun Binay that he can't be prosecuted for alleged crimes committed prior to
his reelection. Photo by Adrian Portugal/Rappler
MANILA, Philippines Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago branded as ludicrous the argument
of Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin Junjun Binay that his reelection absolves him of liability over
the supposedly overpriced Makati City Hall parking building.

Santiago filed a bill to make public officials liable for crimes they committed in past terms. The
senator filed the bill on Thursday, March 26, in response to the pronouncements of the son of
Vice President Jejomar Binay over his suspension.
The former trial court judge and constitutional expert criticized Mayor Binays defense that the
Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in suspending him because the alleged
anomalies were committed when he was not yet mayor of the city, and during his first term as
mayor prior to his reelection in 2013.
That is a cross-eyed simplification of the problem. The first qualification for a public office
should be honesty or integrity. It is wrong to equate the reelection of a public official to
condonation of his past criminal offenses, Santiago said in a statement on Friday.
Senate bill 2716 amends the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act to make an elected official
liable for any wrongdoing committed during a previous term even if he or she was reelected.
In her explanatory note, Santiago questioned the so-called doctrine of condonation, which she
said provides a blanket defense for elected officials to evade liability just by securing a
reelection considering that the term of a local elective official is only 3 years.
The simple act of reelection alone cannot be taken to condone an elective official's previous
illegal acts since to do so would run counter to the State's duty to maintain honesty and integrity
in public office, and to keep officers accountable to the public. It also collides with the character
of public office as a public trust, she said.
Santiago said that the doctrine of condonation was first cited in the 1959 case of Pascual v
Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, which Binays lawyers are invoking.
The doctrine was reiterated in the 2010 case of Salumbides v Ombudsman, a move Santiago
described as very disturbing.
There is a need to evaluate this doctrine in light of the express Constitutional mandate that
public office is a public trust. Those who betray such trust by being dishonest, inefficient, and
corrupt fail to meet the stringent standards found in the Constitution and must be removed,
Santiago said.
The Ombudsman issued a 6-month preventive suspension without pay against Binay on March
10 for the administrative cases of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the
service in connection with the allegedly overpriced building.
In asking the Court of Appeals for a temporary restraining order (TRO), Binay cited the 1992
Supreme Court ruling in Aguinaldo v Santos reiterating previous decisions that the reelection of a
public official effectively absolves him or her of previous acts.

Binay said that the alleged overpricing in the first and second phases of the project occurred
when his father was still mayor of the city. The third and fourth phases were done during his first
term in 2010 to 2013.
To Santiago, Binays explanation undermines the accountability of government officials.
Any public official will feel free to commit any crime, including plunder, and thus winning
reelection, if it automatically means that his previous crimes are condoned, she said.
Ombudsman order valid
This is the second time Santiago expressed a legal opinion contrary to Binays.
Binays suspension caused confusion at the Makati city government as the Court of Appeals
issued a TRO on the suspension after Vice Mayor Romulo Kid Pea Jr took an oath as acting
mayor. Both Binay and Pea claim leadership over the city. (READ: SC partly to blame for
confusion on Binay's suspension)
Binay asked the Court of Appeals to cite the Ombudsman, the Department of Justice, and the
Department of the Interior and Local Government in contempt for defying the TRO.
Santiago said on Wednesday that the Ombudsmans suspension order was valid.
The Ombudsman can order the immediate suspension of a sitting mayor, who is not allowed to
plead that he needs time to file a motion for reconsideration, she said.
Citing the 2008 case of Gobenciong v Court of Appeals, Santiago said there is no legal basis for
the argument that the immediate implementation of preventive suspension denies due process.
In fact, the Supreme Court added that since preventive suspension is not a penalty for an
administrative offense, preventive suspension can be imposed without prior hearing, Santiago
said.
The Ombudsman already elevated the case to the Supreme Court, asking it to stop the
implementation of the TRO on Binays suspension.
The Binays claim that the suspension was a political attack as the Vice President seeks the
presidency in 2016. The Binays have ruled the country's financial capital Makati for over two
decades.
Yet the Office of the Ombudsman said the case filed in July 2014 underwent proper
investigation, and was not done in due haste.
The case is also the subject of a Senate inquiry that started in September 2014, along with other
alleged anomalies of the Binay political dynasty. Rappler.com