SC to hear Ombudsman

petition vs CA in Binay case

SHARES:
VIEW COMMENTS

By: Jerome C. Aning, Tarra Quismundo

@inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer

03:47 AM April 8th, 2015

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments on Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales
petition against Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin Junjun Binay Jr.s plea in the Court of Appeals
to stop his suspension by the Ombudsman in connection with the alleged overpricing of the
Makati City Hall Building II. INQUIRER FILE PHOTOS
The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments on Ombudsman Conchita Carpio
Morales petition against Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin Junjun Binay Jr.s plea in the
Court of Appeals to stop his suspension by the Ombudsman in connection with the
alleged overpricing of the Makati City Hall Building II.

Court spokesperson Theodore Te said the oral arguments will be held at 2 p.m. on April
14 in Baguio City, where the high court magistrates are holding their annual summer
sessions. The proceedings will be livestreamed through the high courts website.
Morales had filed the petition for certiorari in late March, asking the Supreme Court to
stop Binays certiorari plea in the appellate court to stop his suspension by the
Ombudsman while under investigation for corruption.
However, the appellate court had in the meantime granted the Binay petition, issuing a
temporary restraining order (TRO) last March 16, but not before the Department of the
Interior and Local Government (DILG) had served the suspension order against Binay
and sworn into office Vice Mayor Romulo Kid Pea as acting mayor of Makati.
Issued too late
Citing the Ombudsmans independence in undertaking administrative investigations of
erring officials, Morales petition said the appellate court had committed grave abuse of
discretion by issuing a TRO holding Binays six-month suspension in abeyance.
The Ombudsman argued that the TRO was issued too late as the suspension order on
Binay had already been served hours earlier.
This was also the position of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima who issued an opinion on
the issue at the request of the DILG, saying that the TRO was moot as the
Ombudsmans suspension order had been served and an acting mayor had been sworn
in.
For their pains, Morales, De Lima, the DILG, Pea and several police officers were
impleaded in a second, separate petition that Binay has filed, asking that they be cited
in contempt for refusing to honor the TRO.
On Monday, the appellate court erased all doubts about its intent, issuing a writ of
preliminary injunction in Binays favor. The writ extended the 60-day TRO and placed
Binays suspension on hold until the court has ruled with finality on his certiorari
petition.
READ: Junjun Binays camp heaves sigh of relief over CA order
TRO clarified
De Lima on Tuesday said she was accepting the appellate courts Monday ruling which
she said clarified the TRO issued in Binays favor.

In a statement, De Lima said the courts resolution issuing the writ clarified the intent of
the earlier TRO on the acts that were subject to restraint.
It appears the court made the clarification precisely because the earlier TRO was
subject to several interpretations, given the intervening events which affected its
effectivity, she said.
In issuing the writ, the Court of Appeals set aside the Ombudsman and the DILGs
arguments by saying the TRO restored the status quo before the suspension order was
issued and that the courts did have the authority to restrain interlocutory orders from
the Ombudsman, such as the preventive suspension orders.
With the writ of injunction issued being clearer on the status quo sought to be
preserved, the intent of the Court of Appeals is less open to any further interpretation,
De Lima said.
As stated by the Ombudsman, the remedy now is to appeal the issuance of the writ to
the Supreme Court. I think this is now the proper procedure in questioning the
injunction. In the meantime, the party respondents are bound by the [writ], she added.