spot_img
28 C
Philippines
Thursday, March 28, 2024

Mayor Binay files libel suit against senator

- Advertisement -

MAKATI Mayor Jejomar Erwin S. Binay Jr. filed a libel complaint Tuesday against Senator Antonio Trillanes IV for “publicly and maliciously” accusing him and his family of bribery and other crimes without factual basis.

Binay

In an interview aired April 7 over several radio and TV programs and directly quoted in newspapers, Trillanes publicly claimed that the mayor bribed members of the 6th Division of the Court of Appeals with millions of pesos in exchange for favorable action on his petition for a temporary restraining order to stop his preventive suspension.

In the news reports, Trillanes was also quoted as saying that the mayor and his family were “part of a syndicate” that has committed various crimes and irregularities.

In his complaint, Binay said it was evident from the media interview of Trillanes and the subsequent article published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer under the headline “Trillanes: I will expose Binay paid for TRO”, that he had made the statements “despite the utter lack of evidence.”

“The damaging and ruinous claims spewed out by respondent Trillanes are mere concoctions and fabrications with no other purpose than to malign, discredit, ruin my reputation and besmirch my good name as well as that of my family,” Binay said.

- Advertisement -

The mayor pointed out that Trillanes himself had admitted during the interview that he had no valid proof or factual basis for his pronouncements.

Based on the actual interview, the senator appeared evasive when asked directly by reporters how he came to know about the alleged bribery, Binay’s complaint said.

Binay said Trillanes’ allegations were “attended with malice in fact as they were prompted by ill will and spite inasmuch as they have no factual basis whatsoever and were not made in response to duty, but only with obvious intention to injure” his reputation and that of his family.

In a resolution, Trillanes asked the Senate to investigate the alleged bribery, and named two associate justices that he said received P25 million each to issue a temporary restraining order and, later, a preliminary writ of injunction.

In a statement, the Court of Appeals 6th Division denied Trillanes’ allegations and warned the senator against making baseless accusations that were tantamount to harassment.

Binay’s father, Vice President Jejomar Binay, also lambasted Trillanes for making false and malicious allegations.

Quoting unnamed sources, Trillanes said lawyer Arthur Villaraza facilitated the bribe, with Appeals Court Justices Jose Reyes Jr. and Francisco Acosta receiving an initial P20 million each for issuing a TRO against the Office of the Ombudsman.

He added when the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of Interior and Local Government did not heed the TRO, Reyes and Acosta were given P5 million each to issue a writ of preliminary injunction.

Villaraza also denied his involvement and challenged the senator to show proof to support his allegations.

The writ of preliminary injunction prevented the Ombudsman, the DILG and their agents from enforcing the March 10 six-month preventive suspension of Mayor Binay.

The Ombudsman suspended Binay and other city government officials in connection with the alleged overpriced Makati City Hall Building II, which is also the subject of a Senate investigation. With Macon Ramos-Araneta

Acosta was among the two other members of the Sixth Division who concurred with Reyes’ decision. The other member is Justice Eduardo Peralta Jr.

The construction of Makati City Hall Building II started in 2007 while the elder Binay was city mayor. It continued until 2013 under the incumbent mayor.

Trillanes shrugged off the libel charge.

“They picked on the wrong person to intimidate,” he said.

In a text message to reporters, Trillanes said the mayor can do whatever he wants.

“I will run after them until they, who are corrupt, are sent to jail,” he added.

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales on Tuesday prodded her former colleagues in the Supreme Court to stop the Court of Appeals from stopping Mayor Binay’s suspension.

Arguing her petition before the full court in Baguio City, Morales invoked the independence and constitutional powers of her office.

She also warned that the appeals court decision could open the floodgages for other respondents to question the rules of the Ombudsman.

She also said she acted on the case “not on account of politics,” but what she believed called for the filing of cases in court.

She also told the justices that the preventive suspension against Mayor Binay was well within the investigative powers of her office and was necessary to secure evidence in the investigation against the city’s top executive.

Morales acknowledged, however, that the preventive suspension issued against Binay covered only the administrative aspect of the case.

She said in the criminal aspect, only the Sandiganbayan can issue a preventive suspension against him.

Solicitor General Florin Hilbay, who acted as counsel for the anti-graft body, asserted that the appeals court had no power to stop the Ombudsman’s order as only the Supreme Court can do so.

He said the appeals court’s move undermined the Ombudsman’s independence as provided under the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1989.

The law, he added, provides that “no writ of injunction shall be issued by any court to delay an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman… unless there is a prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.”

Hilbay also disputed the CA’s ground that Binay would suffer irreparable damage in the implementation of the suspension order, citing the process of succession that would allow the vice mayor to continue services to the constituents of the city.

However, when Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza asked Hilbay if there was any legislative support to show Congress’ intent to limit the powers of the appeals court, the solicitor-general admitted there was none.

Jardeleza, who served as solicitor general before being appointed to the Court, said this was the first time the Ombudsman has advanced such an interpretation to question the power of the Court of Appeals.

Jardeleza also cited several Supreme Court rulings that petitions against orders of the Ombudsman should go to the Court of Appeals.

He also said if the intent of Congress was to withdraw such appeals from the appellate court, it should have enacted a law amending the power of the Court of Appeals.

The justices said there was confusing jurisprudence over the jurisdiction of the courts on the Ombudsman’s power to suspend officials, and agreed it was time to settle these issues in their ruling on the Ombdusman’s petition.

Oral arguments on the case are set to continue next Tuesday, April 21, during which arguments from the Binay camp will be heard. –

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles