Binay scores in CA hearing


The 6th Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) on Monday said no to moves to suspend hearings on a petition filed by Makati City Mayor Jejomar Erwin Binay Jr. against his preventive suspension.

The CA division headed by Associate Justice Jose Reyes denied the Office of the Ombudsman’s move to halt the hearing as it cited judicial courtesy to an existing petition at the Supreme Court.

“It is the ruling of this court to proceed with the hearing,” the appellate court said.
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales earlier questioned the CA’s issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) against implementation of her order to preventively suspend Binay for six months.

Morales said the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the restraining order.

During the first day of oral arguments on Monday, Assistant Solicitor General Hermes Ocampo said the CA hearing should be stopped pending resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman’s petition with the High Court against Binay’s petition.

“We filed a motion to suspend proceedings on the grounds of judicial courtesy, considering last week, March 25, respondent Ombudsman filed a petition for certiorari before the honorable Supreme Court,” he added.

“While the SC has not issued a TRO [temporary restraining order], we respectfully invoke the limited and qualified application of the doctrine of judicial courtesy,” Ocampo said.

Responding to the manifestation, Justice Francisco Acosta cited the ruling on the case of Fabian vs. Desierto in which the SC clearly empowered the CA with authority and jurisdiction to hear and decide on administrative cases.

“It is clear that unless a TRO or injunction is issued [by the SC], then the court is mandated to proceed with the principal case,” he said.

In denying Morales’ move to halt the hearing, Reyes of the CA 6th Division said, “I’m sure you don’t want us to be charged. Judicial courtesy applies only if there is strong probability that the issue will be rendered moot. The SC likewise ruled and said that the principle of judicial courtesy remains to be the exception than the rule.”

Binay’s counsel Claro Certeza cited the Aguinaldo doctrine in anchoring his position that the Ombudsman’s preventive suspension order was issued with grave abuse of discretion since the allegedly overpriced Makati City Hall Building 2 had already been “condoned” by his constituents by virtue of his election to a second term in office.

There is no evidence to warrant the mayor’s preventive suspension.

“The Ombudsman is referring to the architectural design contract of the building.

considering that Phases 1 and 2 occurred, even before the mayor was elected, with more reason that the architectural design transpired during the period [when]he is not the mayor yet,” Certeza said.

Binay is accused f wrongdoing over the P2.3-billion Building 2.

The Aguinaldo doctrine pardons previous offenses of any local official.

Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Gerard Mosquera said that under the Ombudsman Act of 1989, there is strong evidence to warrant the preventive suspension of Binay as part of the preliminary stage of a corruption investigation.

He added that condonation may not be invoked during the preliminary stage but only during a full-blown administrative proceeding or adjudication.

The CA is set to continue with the hearing on Tuesday on the indirect contempt charges against Morales, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima and Interior Secretary Manuel Roxas 2nd for not honoring the temporary restraining order.


Please follow our commenting guidelines.


  1. ika hagelang on

    bakit kaya ang mayayaman galit na galit sa mga tumutulong sa mahihirap? anu ba ang nagagawa nyo para maibsan ang gutom namin ?kapag magkakasakit kami, meron ba kayo nagagawa? Tumingin kayo sa salamin at tanungin nyo sarlle nyo……”meron ba ako naitutulong sa kapwa ko? Natutulungan ko ba ang matatanda ko gaya ng nakakamit nilang benepisyo at nagpapasaya sa kanila sa huling sandal nila d2 sa mundo?. Kung nanaisin mong maiba ang takbo ng kunsensya mo,magisip kayo ng mabuti.

  2. Kayong nag comment against the CA ay parang alam ninyo ang lahat ng batas. pag ang huwes ay naghatol na hindi naaayon sa gusto ninyo ay agad kayong magbintang na nabayaran. pambihira naman kayo ang dudumi ng isip ninyo. pabayaan ninyo na gumulong ang wheels of justice… kung tingnan ninyo who is more credible the members of the 6th div. ng CA or Morales, de Lima and roxas… sino ang hindi sumunod sa batas… sabihin ninyo.. Ang nais kasi ninyo na susundin ng CA ang gusto ninyo kaagad na husgahan na nagkasala si mayor binay… sino ba kayo na humusga…may due process tayo na dapat sundin… kung personal ang galit ninyo sa mga binay huwag ninyong idamay ang ating judiciary.. mag-isip isip na man kayo.. holy week ngayon try reflect…..

  3. Its a temporary setback from the Ombudsman for a while come this April 6 decision from SC we will know..This is the rule of the Law of binay? CA looks a very one sided in this arguments.

    • how come the CA is one sided? just a simple question from the justices, the attorney’s of roxas,delima & morales can’t answers..oh my God….nakakahiya kayo!!!

  4. …i just hope law will still prevails in our country, tro was issued what to do with that …ibabasura n lang ba, di na pinag uusapan d2 kung mya nakawan o wala ang tanong d2, para saan ba yung tro, pag nasagot dun pag usapan un nakawan….daming nadadamay, MASAGOT SANA AGAD KUNG PARA SAAN BA UN TRO AT KUNG MAY BISA BA, wag tayo maging emosyanal…

  5. I think something fishy in here. Who are these persons in the Court of Appeals? These individuals might have some shadow behind. Don’t they are morons to become a lowyers, I mean lawyers? It’s obvious, then they don’t know the law. They need to be investigated if they have relation with Binay clan.

  6. With this move of the court of appeal the preventive suspension no longer apply. In the first place there was deceit on the part of the DILG in implementing the suspension since they also knew the lawyers of Mayor Binay filed a TRO with the court and when they knew it will granted they immediately install Kit Pena as acting mayor of Makati so legal technicallities will apply. DILG did not immediately implemented the suspension because they also knew Mayor Binay might also be granted a Status Quo Ante Order from the court. Mar Roxas is making too much unpopular moves against the Binay and I feel sorry for Vice mayor Pena because he suffered huge political damage on his political future. I bet Jun jun Binay will have a walk in the park in his re election next year. The people of Makati will vote for him not because they like him but because they hate Mar and Pnoy.

  7. Justice system is so corrupt that money can change things,that is why we need a transition government made up of civilian/military to clean up the government for a few years.So crook like Mr.13%VP Binay can be shoot via firing sguad for plunder.

  8. I find this statement to be something that should immediately got rid of as its a get out clause for criminals.
    ” The Aguinaldo doctrine pardons previous offenses of any local official.”.

    If that means a person has committed offences & then got re elected he is now pardoned for those offences, then its a bad law. Who would make a law like that, either a fool or someone looking to protect himself or his friends. It seems that there are always exits for people in power to be absolved of their crimes. Im one for wanting these people convicted for their crimes. They make a mockery of the law.

    • i believe the doctrine applies only to administrative cases. People can still be punish for any criminal aspect regarding the same case.

  9. Mukha yatang nalagyan na ng mga nognog ang CA. Ngayon natin makikita kung talagang may balls si Morales.

  10. jose btaganahan on

    The hearing will reveal if the CA Justices were Binayarans. The Aquinaldo doctrine does not apply to preventive suspensions but rather on administrative penalties.

    Preventive suspensions are imposed by the Ombudsman (as provided by the Ombudsman law) to prevent those accused from tampering evidence and threatening government witnesses.

  11. Nancy Bulok Cake on

    The CA said “There is no evidence to warrant the mayor’s preventive suspension.”. How much was these judges paid in favor of the Binays. Everytime the Binays go to the CA for TRO, they are always granted. Now it is too obvious the CA are part of the Binay’s payroll. It is a common knowledge in the Phillipines that CA judges always favor the moneyed or rich people in return for TRO requested. What other evidences do these CA judges need to look for not to grant TRO for Gunggong Binay. It is Lent season and may the souls of these judges go to HELL for favoring lifetime requests by the Binays. May they suffer incurable diseases for 30 silvers they received from the Binays.

    • Please be informed that the one that said “There is no evidence to warrant the mayor’s preventive suspension.” was Binay’s lawyer and not the CA.