Gutierrez, reacting to criticism over the timing of the order, said Binay was supended to put him on "equal footing" with his complainant, who accused the mayor of graft.
She ordered Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno to report on the action taken in implementing the suspension order on Binay as well as another official of the Makati City government.
"We shall wait for their formal reply on our order of implementation issued today and we shall act accordingly, consistent with existing laws and procedures," Gutierrez said in a statement issued by her office, referring to the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).
Reacting to criticisms of political harassment, Gutierrez, in a text message to The STAR, said Malacañang had nothing to do with the order.
"The Office of the Ombudsman is mandated to fight graft and corruption. It is important to stress that evidence and not politics dictates our actions, nothing more, nothing less," Gutierrez said.
Gutierrez also brushed aside complaints of the administration senatorial bets that the order was ill-timed and could cost them the elections.
"People should not treat the work of the Ombudsman as that of politicians who are concerned with political timing, political cost and benefits. The only timing the Ombudsman is concerned with is ‘will respondents’ continued presence in office jeopardize the investigation?’ If the answer is yes, then that is when the suspension must be ordered and implemented. When we ordered the suspension of two mayors in Southern Visayas several weeks ago, we did not hear of anyone saying the orders were ‘ill-timed’," the ombudsman added.
In his compliance report, DILG undersecretary Marius Corpus reported that the suspension was served at 11:30 pm last May 4.
However, Puno requested the Ombudsman to reconsider the suspension order as part of the gentlemen’s agreement between Binay and Corpus.
Puno said that the motion was filed through the Office of the Solicitor General.
If the Ombudsman denies the request, Puno said that Binay has no choice but to allow his Vice Mayor Ernesto Mercado to take over as mayor of the city.
Puno also clarified that even though there is a petition for a motion for reconsideration, Binay is still effectively suspended right now because the suspension order took effect the moment it was served to the mayor.
He reiterated that Binay has no authority at this time to perform any official function as mayor, including the signing of documents, since he is still suspended.
Puno said that Malacañang had nothing to do with the order against Binay and that the DILG had no choice but to carry out the order of the Ombudsman.
All other respondents were required to file within ten days their counter-affidavits.
Last Friday, Gutierrez approved the recommendation of the five-man
Ombudsman panel chaired by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro to place under a six-month preventive suspension Binay and City Treasurer Luz Yamane for allegedly maintaining "ghost employees" at the Makati City Hall from the years 2004 to 2005.
The order stemmed from a case that was filed by former Makati City Councilor Oscar Ibay against Binay, Yamane, Makati City Vice Mayor Ernesto Mercado and its City Councilors.
Gutierrez set a public hearing on the case on May 8 at 9 am.
Ibay filed charges of grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and dishonesty against the officials.
In his complaint, Ibay said records obtained from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) showed that the names of persons whose employment were already severed in the year 2003 and were delisted from GSIS records have remained in the BIR’s list of Makati City Government’s employees for the year 2004 and 2005.
Ibay said the "ghost employees" were found to have remitted their income taxes for the said years.
Ibay said "these employees no longer perform any of their duties as government employees but are still receiving salaries from the City Government."
He also found out that during those two years when the said "ghost employees" were receiving their salaries from the City Government, it deducted the employees’ monthly GSIS contributions but these were not remitted to the GSIS.
One of the complainant’s witnesses said that the scheme "is being perpetrated by naming individuals to be included in the list of employees of non-government organizations being funded and in the payroll of the Office of the Mayor."
However, these individuals are not legitimate employees as they do not actually receive any salary from or render any service to the City Hall.
He said that the case of Binay would have no impact in the provinces where Team Unity has already established itself as the dominant coalition.
But the bets themselves are getting antsy with the Ombudsman’s dispensing of suspension orders.
Re-electionist Sen. Ralph Recto reiterated that no sanction should be imposed on local officials during this period. "Any repeat of the Binay imbroglio in the crucial homestretch of the campaign would hurt Team Unity."
"Let no sequels of the Makati incident take place, please," he added, as if urging the government to stop harassing local officials who are not identified in the administration coalition.
Former presidential chief of staff Mike Defensor lauded the action taken by the DILG not to carry out the suspension, adding that the agency is only doing its functions upon the order of the Ombudsman.
"Masaya ako na maka-kampanya na si Mayor Binay ng masaya at walang pressure. Pangalawa, iyung ginagawa ng DILG na pag-defer ay dapat din namang i-commend dahilan sa Ombudsman naman ang naglabas ng order (I’m glad Mayor Binay can now campaign freely and without pressure. Secondly, the DILG’s deferment should also be commended since it was the Ombudsman that issued the order)," Defensor said.
Binay and Ernesto Aspillaga, former head of the general services division of the city, were earlier charged with conspiracy over the alleged anomalous purchase of P13,253,587.61 worth of office partitions and furniture between December 1999 and February 2000.
In a 16-page Motion to Quash, Binay and Aspillaga said that the charges must be dismissed for it violates their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.
Binay and Aspillaga filed a motion to quash after the anti-graft court’s Fourth Division, chaired by Associate Justice Gregory Ong, denied with finality their motions seeking a reinvestigation of the graft case by the Ombudsman.
Binay and Aspillaga claimed the information was insufficient for the allegations therein were all in the form of legal conclusions, particularly the prosecution’s claim that the public bidding held on Sept. 17, 1999 for the purchases was rigged.
Binay and Aspillaga said that nowhere in the charge sheet could be found the specific facts and circumstances that support conclusions of a simulated public bidding as well as the existence of bad faith, manifest partiality and gross inexcusable negligence on their part. – with Marvin Sy, Delon Porcalla