CA: Suspension order vs. Junjun Binay on indefinite hold

By MARK MERUEÑAS, GMA News

Published April 6, 2015 4:20pm

From 60 days, the Court of Appeals has extended indefinitely its restraining order against the suspension of Makati Mayor Junjun Binay, who is embroiled in a corruption controversy involving the construction of Makati City Hall Building II.

In a resolution on Monday, the CA Sixth Division issued a writ of preliminary injunction against an Ombudsman joint order preventively suspending Binay and 15 other Makati City officers for six months over alleged overpricing in the construction of the controversial building.

"The court hereby resolves to grant Junjun Binay's prayer for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction enjoining respondents Ombudsman, DILG and their agents and all representatives from enforcing the joint order dated March 10, 2015 and to respect and preserve the status quo before the issuance of the aforesaid joint order relative to petitioner's preventive suspension for six months," read the resolution.

The CA also ordered Binay to post a bond of P500,000 "which may answer for whatever damages which may be sustained by reason of this preliminary injunction in the event that it is finally decided that petitioner is not entitled thereto."

The CA agreed with Binay that the elements needed for a writ of preliminary injunction were “attendant to his cause.”

These pre-conditions were: the invasion of a right sought to be protected is material and substantial; the right of the complaint is clear and unmistakable, and there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.

The CA also clarified that the subject matter of its March 16 TRO was the enforcement of the March 10 Ombudsman joint order to preventively suspend Binay. The CA said the TRO was aimed to “preserve the status quo until the determination” of the propriety of granting a temporary restraining order.

The CA described status quo as “the last actual peaceable uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy."

“The status quo could not be that were petitioner was preventively suspended since the suspension did not precede the present controversy; it is the controversy,” the CA said.

The CA also clarified that its writ of preliminary injunction does not mean it was discouraging the Ombudsman from pushing through with its probe on Binay.

“It is equally imperative to stress in bold strokes that neither did we suggest that the investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman should now be halted insofar as the administrative and criminal case of petitioner since… the Ombudsman’s power to investigate is distinct from the authority to preventively suspend,” the CA ruled.

The CA also acknowledged that when it comes to decisions of the Ombudsman, the appeals court cannot obstruct through an injunction. “[However] the Court can thus impede an interlocutory order, such as a preventive suspension order from the Office of the Ombudsman,” the CA said.

The CA had earlier issued a 60-day temporary restraining order against the suspension. Despite the TRO, the Department of Interior and Local Government refused to re-install Binay, prompting the latter to file a contempt plea.

Last week, the CA conducted a two-day hearing on both Binay's original petition contesting the suspension as well as his contempt petition.

Junjun Binay, son of Vice President Jejomar Binay, is facing graft and plunder charges in connection with the alleged overpricing in the construction of the Makati City Hall Building II.

During last week's hearing, 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 the decision of the Ombudsman, despite being a constitutionally independent body. —KBK/JFJ/TJD, GMA News

Tags: junjunbinay, makaticityhallbuildingii