SC says Junjun Binay’s petition should be junked

(Updated 6:22 p.m.) The Court of Appeals should dismiss Makati Mayor Junjun Binay's petition against his preventive suspension over graft charges in connection with the alleged overpricing of the Makati City Hall Building II, the Supreme Court has ruled.

In a full court session, the SC ruled that Binay's plea at the CA had already been rendered moot because the Office of the Ombudsman had already removed him and perpetually disqualified him from service in early October.

"Considering that the Ombudsman, on October 9, 2015, had already found Binay Jr administratively liable and imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal, which carries the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office, for the present adminisyrative charges against him, the CA petition ought to be dismissed on the ground of mootness," read the SC decision.

The SC said the preventive suspension order is only an "ancillary issuance that, at its core" serves the purpose of assisting the Office of the Ombudsman in its investigation.

"It therefore has no more purpose - and perforce, dissolves - upon the termination of the office's process of investigation in the instant administrative case," said the high court.

In the same ruling penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe, the SC also struck down both Section 14, Par. 2 of Republic Act No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, and the so-called "condonation rule."

The SC deemed as "vague" Section 14, Par. 2 of RA 6770, which prevents a court, apart from the SC, from hearing any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman on pure question of law.

The SC said the portion of the law was vague for two reasons: It is unclear what the phrase "application for remedy" or the word "findings" refer to; and it does not specify what procedural remedy is solely allowable to the SC except that it may be taken only on a question of law.

The SC also said the condonation doctrine, which became part of Philippine jurisprudence in 1959 when the high court stated that an elected official can be cleared from past administrative liability if he gets re-elected, should be abandoned for lack of basis in the 1987 Philippine Constitution and law.

"As can be seen from this discourse, it was a doctrine adopted from one class of US rulings way back in 1959 and thus, out of touch from - and now rendered obsolete by - the current legal regime," said the SC.

"In consequence, it is high time for this Court to abandon the condonation doctrine that originated from Pascual, and affirmed in the cases following the same, such as Aguinaldo, Salalima, Mayor Garcia, and Governor Garcia Jr, which were all relied upon by the CA," it added.

‘Condonation has no legal basis’

The SC said the doctrine is "bereft of legal basis" and that none of the provisions under the Local Government Code on the discipline of public officers stated that the administrative liability of a public official is extinguished by the fact of re-election.

"Election is not a mode of condoning an administrative offense, and there is simply no constitutional or statutory basis in our jurisdiction to support the notion o=that an official elected for a different term is fully absolved of any administrative liability arising from an offense done during a prior term," read the decision.

The court, however clarified that the abandonment of the condonation doctrine should be prospective in application.

"For this reason, the Court of Appeals' reliance on the cases invoking the condonation doctrine did not constitute grave abuse of discretion," ruled the SC.

"By merely following settled precedents on the condonation doctrine, which at that time, unwittingly remained 'good law,' it cannot be concluded that the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion base don its legal attribution above. Accordingly, the writ of preliminary injunction against the Ombudsman's preventive suspension order was correctly issued," the SC added.

Asked how the abandonment of the condonation doctrine would affect Binay's case.

"The incident that was raised to the court is very specific. That incident is very specific. As far as that incident is concerned, it is not covered by the abandonment," Te told reporters during the briefing.

CA can stop Ombudsman orders

Meanwhile, the SC declared as "ineffective" Section 14, Par. 1 of RA 6770, which prohibits any court, apart from the SC, from issuing a writ of injunction to delay an investigation being conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman.

In its decision, the SC said the provision "encroached on the SC's constitutional rule-making authority, specifically in defining the scope of injunctions and restraint orders as provisional and ancillary to a court's subject matter jurisdiction and as inherent in a court."

The SC said Congress violated the separation of powers when it eliminated a provisional remedy included in the Court's rules by limiting the power of all courts, except the SC, to issue injunctions over Ombudsman probes.

In its petition, the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Solicitor General, insisted that while the CA may have jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari filed by Binay with the appeals court contesting his preventive suspension, it does not have authority to issue any writ of restraint over the Ombudsman’s preventive suspension, under Section 14, Paragraph 1, Republic Act 6770.

Morales would later change her position and maintain that the CA no longer has authority over Binay's petitions for both certiorari and writ of restraint.

Six-month suspension

Binay was suspended for six months due to his alleged involvement in irregularities in the construction of the Makati City Hall Building II. The suspension was stopped by the CA, prompting the Ombudsman to seek redress from the SC.

Binay had earlier invoked the condonation doctrine to contest the Ombudsman's preventive suspension order.

The Ombudsman later issued a second suspension over the construction of the Makati City Science High School.

The Ombudsman also ultimately dismissed Binay over the Makati City Hall Building II mess, which the suspended mayor moved for reconsideration.

Will comply if executory

Morales said her office has no choice but to comply with the latest Supreme Court ruling reversing the suspension order that she issued against Makati Mayor Erwin “Junjun” Binay, son of Vice President Jejomar Binay, in connection with the allegedly overpriced construction of Makati City Hall Building II.

“What can I do? It’s the Supreme Court which is speaking…If the position of the High Court is final and executory we will respect it. But if it’s not final we will certainly oppose,” Morales told reporters in a chance interview Tuesday night at the sidelines of an economic forum in Makati.

Morales said the dismissal order still stands, unless Binay would be able to get another favorable ruling from the CA.

“Naka-issue na ako [ng order] and I already dismissed him.… It’s up to him if he wants to question the dismissal order. That’s the administrative aspect and he should go to the Court of Appeals,” Morales said. -with a report from Elizabeth Marcelo/NB, GMA News