MAKATI City Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” S. Binay Jr. can now heave a sigh of relief, thanks to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA indefinitely stopped the Office of the Ombudsman from implementing its joint order placing him under a six-month preventive suspension pending resolution of a graft case filed against him for his alleged involvement in the overpricing of the Makati City Hall Building II.
In a 15-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Jose Reyes Jr., the CA’s Sixth Division granted the plea of Binay’s camp for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining respondents Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales and the Department of the Interior and Local Government from enforcing Binay’s suspension order issued on March 10.
The appellate court directed the parties to preserve the status quo before the issuance of the joint order.
The CA, however, ordered Binay to file a bond amounting to P500,000 to answer for whatever damages which may be sustained by reason of the preliminary injunction in the event that it is finally decided that he is not entitled for the said remedy.
“While public office is a public trust and there is no vested right to hold public office, still it is the policy of the Court to exercise utmost scrutiny in reviewing suspension orders brought before its jurisdiction by
reason of jurisprudential aversion toward preventive measure,” the CA said. The appellate court noted that contrary to the claim of the Ombudsman, there was no concrete indication and evidence of Binay’s participation for the alleged payments on July 3, 2013, July 4, 2013, and July 24, 2013, corresponding to Hillmarc’s Construction Corp. and MANA Architecture and Design Co.
However, the CA stressed that it is not suggesting for the Ombudsman to stop its investigation insofar as the administrative and criminal case
of Binay. It noted that the Ombudsman’s power to investigate is “distinct from the authority to preventively suspend.”
“Notwithstanding these pronoucements lifted from calibrated propositions and documentations from the parties, it did not perforce mean, too, that we virtually placed the cart ahead of the horse, so to speak,” it added.
In seeking a writ of preliminary injunction, Binay argued that he is entitled to such relief as he has a “clear and unmistakable right to hold public office” having won by a landslide vote in the 2010 and 2013 local elections.
He added that the issuance of preventive suspension violated his rights since it seeks to suspend him for allegations, which can no longer hold him administratively liable since his reelection for a second term rendered the case against him moot and academic.
Binay also claimed that his suspension has no basis since the evidence against him is “not strong.”
In his petition filed before the CA, Binay accused respondent Carpio- Morales acting with grave abuse of discretion in ordering his suspension despite the fact that the evidence of guilt against him is not strong, in violation of Section 24 of Republic Act 6770, or the Ombudsman Act and Administrative Order 07 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman).
He said the Makati Cty Hall Building II involved five construction phases with Phases I and II undertaken before hewas elected as mayor in 2010. The construction of Phases III to V were undertaken during his first term as mayor.
Thus, Binay said, he cannot be held accountable for any alleged anomaly involving Phases I and II of the project as he was not yet the elected mayor.
With respect to Phases III to V, which transpired during his first term from 2010-2013, Binay said the Ombudsman can no longer held him administratively accountable for such since his reelection for a second term rendered the case against him moot and academic.