The allegation, it would be recalled, was made in a press conference by his political rival, former Makati vice mayor Roberto Brillante. According to Brillante, the justices allegedly received P30 million in exchange for the dismissal of the case against Binay.
For making the allegation, the justices of the third division — presiding magistrate Associate Justice Godofredo Legaspi, Associate Justices Efren dela Cruz and Norberto Geraldez — have threatened to cite Brillante for indirect contempt. Binay is scheduled to give his testimony at 1:30 p.m.
In a three-page resolution, the court branded Brillante’s allegation as "baseless, unfounded and devoid of truth."
"It (Brillante’s accusation) was intended to malign the justices of this court and the court itself. It tends to put the court in disrepute, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and the justices engaged in that function," the resolution stated.
Last Oct. 30, the third division dismissed the case against Binay, ruling that the information filed by the Office of the Ombudsman was ‘fatally defective.’
The court held that there was nothing in the information that would support the allegation that the bidding for the contract was "rigged or simulated"; that there was ‘close intimacy between the public offices held by the defendants and their supposed commission of the offense’; or that the contract was overpriced.
The court also said the prosecution erred in making "conclusions of law rather than submitting statements of fact." But the case was dismissed without prejudice to its re-filing in the future if and when the ‘defects’ are corrected.
According to Brillante’s lawyer, Napoleon Malimas, his client will start presenting evidence in his contempt hearing from Dec. 6 to Dec. 8, 2006.
In citing Brillante for indirect contempt, the Third Division cited Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court in initiating the contempt proceedings.
Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, states that "the Court may, motu proprio, initiate a proceeding for indirect contempt." The court also cited Section 3(d) of Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that "any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice" may be punished for indirect contempt.