Junjun questions transfer of libel case vs Trillanes to DOJ

MANILA, Philippines - Suspended Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr. has questioned the transfer of the probe on the libel complaint he filed against Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV from the Makati City prosecutor’s office to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Trillanes, who failed to appear during the preliminary investigation at the DOJ yesterday, was charged with libel for claiming that Binay bribed two Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justices with P25 million each to stop the six-month preventive suspension order imposed on him by the Office of the Ombudsman.

Binay’s lawyer, Claro Certeza, filed a motion questioning the basis for the transfer of the probe to the DOJ.

Certeza said Trillanes’ camp failed to justify the need for the Makati prosecutor to inhibit from the case and pass it to the DOJ.

The lawyer said none of the grounds for mandatory inhibition under Section 57 of the 2008 Manual for Prosecutors – in which the prosecutor’s wife or child is an interested party in the case, or is related to either party by affi-nity, related to the counsel, or has been named executor, administrator, guardian or trustee of a party to the case – is present in the case.

Trillanes sought the inhibition of the entire Makati prosecutor’s office because the city government provides allowances as well as administrative, logistical and personnel support to the judiciary and prosecutorial offices in the city.

“Jurisprudence on voluntary inhibition provides the rudimentary rule that mere suspicion that the judge is partial is not enough. The movants have to show by clear and convincing evidence their charge of bias and partiality on the part of the judge or prosecutor sought to be inhibited,” the motion read.

“We cannot find any compelling reason to justify the transfer of the venue. We have to remember that Mayor Binay is not presently occupying his office because of the second suspension order issued by the ombudsman, so how can the city prosecutors be under his influence?” the lawyer said.

Certeza pointed out that the transfer of the hearing to the DOJ was questionable since Justice Secretary Leila de Lima is one of the respondents in a related contempt case that Binay filed before the CA.

De Lima, who is expected to be included in the Liberal Party’s senatorial lineup, issued a legal opinion saying the restraining order issued by the appellate court against Binay’s suspension was “moot and academic.”

“It is clear that the present administration is against the Binays and all the resources of the government is being used against them. They want the DOJ to handle the case,” Certeza said.

Trillanes was represented during the hearing by his lawyer, Judy Ann Bautista.

“We believe that we would not get a fair and favorable decision in the Makati prosecutor’s office,” Bautista told reporters.

The lawyer said her client was not able to attend the proceeding because he was out of town.

Binay to Trillanes: Show up

The camp of Vice President Jejomar Binay urged Trillanes to appear before the appellate court on Aug. 14 to present evidence to support his allegations of bribery against two CA magistrates.

“The CA is the proper forum where Senator Trillanes should present evidence to support his allegation of bribery against sitting justices,” Rico Quicho, Binay’s spokesman for political affairs, said in a statement.

“It’s time for Senator Trillanes to be held accountable for his indiscretions in a fair and impartial investigation,” Quicho said.

On Tuesday, the CA’s Special Fifth Division summoned Trillanes to explain his allegations that Justices Jose Reyes Jr. and Francisco Acosta received bribe money in exchange for the issuance of a temporary restraining order stopping the suspension of Mayor Binay.

Reyes and Acosta denied the allegations. – With Helen Flores