Is Ombudsman pre-judging Binay case? Legal experts weigh in 

If outgoing Integrated Bar of the Philippines national president Vicente Joyas were to be asked, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales seemed to have already pre-judged the case against Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay on the Makati Science High School controversy.

 

Joyas on Thursday said it was “very unfair” for the Ombudsman when she made public pronouncements defending her preventive suspension order against Binay and said there was “strong evidence” against the Makati mayor.

“That is a clear case of pre-judgment. A judge is not allowed to discuss in public the merits of the cases pending before him or her. Ombudsman Morales is exercising a quasi-judicial function, necessarily the rule must apply to her,” said Joyas.

“How can Junjun Binay expect a fair judgment when she categorically pronounced him guilty even before the evidence are carefully evaluated?” he added.

 

Unlike in regular courts, Binay does not have an option to seek the re-raffle of the case or ask for the Ombudsman’s recusal, according to Joyas.

 

“In court cases, when and where judges made pre-judgment motion for inhibition and re-raffle to another are available. But how can that be done in case of Ombudsman Morales when she is the only Ombudsman,” said Joyas, who clarified his statements were his own and does not reflect that of the IBP.

 

Contrary to Joyas' opinion, lawyer Raymond Fortun, meanwhile, said he does not think Morales "pre-judged" the Binay case with her recent statements.

 

"The preventive suspension pre-supposes that the Ombudsman has made some 'judgment' that the evidence of guilt is strong. [Morales' statement] may not necessarily violate the respondent's rights," said Fortun, adding that Binay can anyway defend himself in court in case it gets elevated.

 

Fortun, however, reminded the Ombudsman that her power to preventively suspend Binay should not exceed six months.

 

The Makati mayor, in a speech inside the Makati City Hall Monday afternoon, said the Ombudsman was being used by the administration in the alleged political harassment against his family, especially since his father, Vice President Jejomar Binay, has been open about his plan to run for president in 2016.

 

Morales denied accusations by the vice president that the Aquino administration was guilty of “selective of justice.” Morales cited the case of Philippine National Police director general Alan Purisima, a close friend of the President, who had just been dismissed over an anomalous contract with a courier firm.

But Atty. Levito Baligod, former lawyer of the whistleblowers in the P10-billion pork barrel fund scam, maintained that the “selective justice” was apparent in this administration.

 

He said he understood if the filing of the second batch of cases related to the Priority Development Assistance Fund or pork barrel scam was getting delayed due to personnel constraints.

 

“But the delay in the filing of the third batch by the DOJ with the Office of the Ombudsman is unreasonable and indicative of a breach in the rule  of law,” said Baligod.

 

“It is a clear case of partiality to favor its allies, especially in the light of Secretary Leila de Lima’s pronouncement way back on June 13, 2014 that the evidence is already complete and ready for filing,” he added.

 

Mayor Junjun Binay initially refused to heed the suspension order, but eventually temporarily stepped down and vacated the Makati City hall while awaiting action from the Court of Appeals on a fresh plea contesting his suspension. - JJ, GMA News