Vice President Jejomar Binay’s wife, Elenita, is asking the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan’s Third Division to reverse its ruling that set reading of charges against her.
Her arraignment in two cases, each consisting of one count of graft and malversation, did not push through last November 20 as she expressed her intention to appeal the ruling.
Mrs. Binay also asked the anti-graft court’s Third Division to require the Ombudsman to explain why it “failed” to file with the Sandiganbayan copies of her counter-affidavits in preliminary investigations of the cases.
In an eight-page motion for reconsideration/clarification, her camp said she has a pending petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court (SC), wherein she asked that, pending the petition, a preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order (TRO) be issued on the Sandiganbayan and Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).
Attached to the pleading was the 44-page petition, which challenged her inclusion in the amended graft and malversation charges early this year in connection with the allegedly overpriced purchase of hospital beds for Ospital ng Makati when she was Makati City (Metro Manila) mayor.
Last November 20, before the scheduled arraignment, Mrs. Binay had filed before the SC a motion to resolve her petition, which was attached to the pleading.
She also intends to question before the SC the graft and malversation charges against her over the allegedly anomalous purchase of medical equipment and supplies.
Just like in the above-mentioned petition, “Dr. Binay will also raise the issues of the Ombudsman’s unwarranted review of the final and executory cases against her . . . unwarranted review of the dismissal of the criminal charges against her, without any notice and opportunity to be heard, and inordinate delay in resolving the criminal complaints.”
She said her constitutional rights to due process and to speedy disposition of cases have been violated that, she said, “undeniably demonstrate capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment . . . amounting to lack or excess in jurisdiction.”
Mrs. Binay stressed the need for the Sandiganbayan to reconsider its ruling in order to protect her right to be free from “unwarranted and vexatious prosecution.”
The anti-graft court’s Third Division reset the arraignment to January 29 next year.