CA grills gov’t lawyers on defying Binay TRO

MANILA, Philippines - Government counsels yesterday took the cudgels for what a Court of Appeals (CA) justice described as their defiance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the preventive suspension of Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr.

In a hearing on Binay’s contempt petition, representatives of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales and Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Mar Roxas were grilled by justices of the CA’s Sixth Division for their interpretation of the TRO issued by the court last March 16.

Failure to respond

The three magistrates took turns in questioning Senior State Solicitor Raymund Rigodon, Roxas’ counsel, who said in open court that the TRO was invalid.

Associate Justice Francisco Acosta asked the solicitor what his authority was to insist that the six-month suspension period against Binay was fully implemented before the CA issued the order, which was therefore moot. Rigodon failed to respond and instead asked for more time to prepare an answer.

Acosta also quizzed Rigodon if there is any jurisprudence to support the argument that the CA has no power to issue a TRO on preventive suspension orders of the ombudsman. The solicitor admitted he is not aware of any. 

Rigodon also argued during hearing that the DILG should have not been impleaded in the contempt case as the agency enjoys state immunity from suits. But the justice told him that Roxas – who is not immune – is the subject of the petition, not the DILG as an agency.

Associate Justice Jose Reyes Jr., chair of the division, shared his fellow justice’s opinion.

Reyes also scrutinized the legal opinion of Morales that the TRO was moot and unenforceable. He believes this “could have also triggered the defiance (of the TRO).”

Motive 

Reyes questioned the motive of the manifestation filed with the court last March 17 – which espoused the ombudsman’s legal opinion – that included a conclusion that the TRO was moot and academic. 

The justice made the same comment on a similar legal opinion by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima. 

Associate Justice Eduardo Peralta Jr. questioned Rigodon why he did not advise Roxas to seek clarification from the court on the TRO’s parameters instead of asking for De Lima’s opinion.

In the three-hour hearing, Binay’s lawyer Claro Certeza asked the CA justice to cite the officials in contempt for their alleged contumacious acts in defiance of the TRO.

The lawyer said Morales and De Lima both advanced their view that the TRO was moot and unenforceable.

 He alleged that Roxas ordered the police to defy the court order and enforce the suspension order, while Vice Mayor Romulo Peña continues to act as acting mayor despite the TRO.

“Contempt is proper under the circumstances because there’s clearly a defiance of the order,” Certeza explained.

But Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Gerard Mosquera, who represented Morales, argued that the ombudsman could only be held criminally liable via impeachment proceedings as provided in the Constitution.

He added that Morales just issued a legal opinion, which is part of her duty and cannot be considered a contumacious act against the court. 

De Lima is also a respondent in the contempt case but did not have representation in the hearing. The CA gave her three days to submit her comment along with Peña, who was also not represented.

The CA said they will issue a ruling “soon” on Binay’s petition to cite the respondents for contempt.

Asked by Certeza to issue a clarification and reiterate the TRO, Reyes told the lawyer to just wait for the resolution of the court on their prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, which would extend the effectivity of the TRO for an indefinite period.