Revilla’s plea for inhibition vs judge junked anew

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has denied for lack of merit the second plea of Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. for Associate Justice Karl Miranda to inhibit himself from the former senator’s malversation case involving an alleged ghost flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan.

In a resolution dated Sept. 24, the anti-graft court said Revilla failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Miranda acted with arbitrariness that would warrant his recusal from the case.

“Justice Miranda must proceed with his duty to sit and hear the subject case,” the resolution read.

In his appeal, Revilla argued that the judge is a brother of lawyer Buenaventura Miranda, counsel of former public works undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, who is a witness in the P92.8-million malversation case filed against the former senator.

Revilla said Bernardo’s legal counsel and law office could have coordinated with the prosecution and assisted in the admission of the former public works official to the Witness Protection Program.

He said Miranda, who voted against granting him bail, relied heavily on Bernardo’s testimony, as shown in the judge’s dissenting opinion.

The former senator questioned the alleged remarks made earlier by Miranda, which he said gave the impression that the magistrate had prejudged the case.

Revilla was referring to a supposed remark made by Miranda, which encouraged defendants to look into the benefits available under the Good Conduct and Time Allowance (GCTA) Law.

He said Miranda appeared to presume that the defendant in the case would be meted a lengthy prison sentence.

In ruling against Revilla’s appeal, the anti-graft court said that mere suspicion or imputation of bias or partiality is not sufficient to warrant inhibition.

The court said there must be “clear and convincing evidence of acts or conduct indicating arbitrariness.”

It said Bernardo is a witness to the case, and Miranda has no stake or interest in the law firm of his brother.

The anti-graft court said Miranda’s remarks on the GCTA law were not driven by prejudice against Revilla and other defendants, but because of his advocacy for restorative justice, prison reform and the rights of all persons deprived of liberty.