Govt lawyer to CA: TRO vs. Junjun Binay suspension not enforceable

(Updated 7:27 p.m.) Government lawyers on Tuesday argued before the Court of Appeals that the temporary restraining order (TRO) it issued on the suspension order against Makati Mayor Junjun Binay is not enforceable.

On the second day of oral arguments on Binay's petition contesting his suspension, Solicitor Raymund Rigodon said the TRO issued on March 16 was not considered enforceable yet because the DILG has yet to receive a copy of the P500,000 cash bond that Binay was required to post.

"Not being enforceable, the March 16 resolution did not create any legal obligation on the part of the DILG (Department of Interior and Local Government) and Philippine National Police," said Rigodon.

In contesting the suspension order by the Office of the Ombudsman, Binay, son of Vice President Jejomar Binay, also asked the CA to cite in contempt the government officials involved in carrying out the suspension order for defying the TRO.

The suspension was in connection with Binay's alleged involvement in the supposed overpricing in the Makati City Hall Building II. Binay has filed a contempt plea after the government refused to honor the TRO.

During Tuesday's proceedings, Deputy Ombudsman Gerard Mosquera tried to convince the three-member CA Sixth Division why Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales should not be held in contempt.

Mosquera also insisted that Morales, being an impeachable officer, is immune from contempt charges,

Morales had issued the preventive suspension, which was served by the Department of Interior and Local Government and the police.

The Ombudsman and the DILG have insisted the TRO was moot and academic for being issue too late.

Binay's lawyer Claro Certeza, however, argued otherwise, saying the TRO cannot be rendered moot because the act being restrained—the six-month suspension of Binay—is "continuing."

"On the question of either the TRO issued by the court is already moot and academic... The act must be consumated and irreversibe," he said.

He added that in Binay's case, the act "is continuing in nature."

Certeza also said they are not trying to impeach Morales with their contempt plea, but was simply ensuring the CA resolution was followed.

He said there is nothing in the law that states the Ombudsman cannot be held in contempt of court, adding under Section 7, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person found guilty of indirect contempt may be meted with a P30,000 fine and imprisonment.

As for Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, who Binay also wanted cited for contempt for issuing a legal opinion on the TRO issue, the CA gave her and Makati Vice Mayor Romulo Pena three days to submit a comment on the contempt plea.

After which, the CA will submit Binay's petition for resolution.

During the first day of the oral arguments on Monday, the government, through the Solicitor General, tried but failed to convince the appellate court to suspend the proceedings in light of a related plea pending with the Supreme Court.

The CA also insisted that contrary to the Ombudsman's claim, it may rule over decision of the Ombudsman, despite being a constitutionally independent body. —KBK, GMA News