Sandiganbayan denies Revilla bid to remove judge in malversation case

The Sandiganbayan has denied the motion of former senator Ramon Bong Revilla, Jr. seeking the inhibition of Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Karl Miranda in the malversation case lodged against the actor-politician due to lack of merit. 

In a Resolution dated February 10, the anti-graft court said Miranda is  duty-bound to proceed with this case involving the alleged P92.8 million ghost flood control project in the town of Pandi in Bulacan province. 

“His (Miranda) inhibition without concrete proof of personal interest or bias will set a dangerous  precedent and present opportunities for abuse. Specifically, this would be tantamount to an automatic granting of a voluntary inhibition, which would open the floodgates to a form of forum-shopping, in which litigants would be allowed to shop for ajudge more sympathetic to their cause, and would prove antithetical to the speedy and fair administration of justice,” the anti-graft court said. 

The Revilla camp wants Miranda to inhibit because the magistrate’s brother, Buenaventura Miranda, served as the counsel of former Public Works Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo during the Senate inquiry on the flood control anomalies.

Bernardo has since been named state witness in the cases involving these flood control projects.

Ahead of Revilla’s motion, Miranda also disclosed that Revilla’s lead counsel, Ramon Esguerra, is his personal friend.

The Sandiganbayan, however, said the rules on inhibition “must be applied with a sober regard for the perception of impartiality.”

“The Sandiganbayan was created precisely to ensure that cases involving public accountability are resolved by magistrates who are not easily dissuaded by conjecture, pressure, or unfounded suspicion. To inhibit in the absence of clear and convincing proof of bias would be a retreat from that mandate and a disservice to the court's core values of Honor, Integrity, and Accountability…honor, in refusing to yield to baseless insinuations; integrity, in remaining faithful to the law and jurisprudence governing judicial inhibition; and accountability, in discharging the sworn obligation to decide cases promptly and fairly,” the court said. 

“Public trust in the judiciary is preserved by judges who, guided by these principle resolve cases on the merits, anchored solely on the evidence and the law, and not by unwarranted recusals. Accordingly, the Urgent Motion for Inhibition dated February 8, 2026 and filed by accused Ramon Bautista Bong Revilla, Jr., on even date is hereby denied for lack of merit,”it added. —RF, GMA Integrated News