• VP Binay to file cases vs. Ombudsman


    The camp of Vice President Jejomar Binay said it will file charges against the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) of the Ombudsman for reviving the malversation cases against his wife, Dr. Elenita Binay.

    The charges will be for grave abuse of authority, violation of Constitutional rights, and political persecution.

    Joey Salgado, the Vice President’s spokesman, lamented the manner in which the OSP conducted their review of the already dismissed cases against Binay’s wife. Salgado said the manner was done in “undue haste, harassment and the blatant absence of transparency.”

    He said “a white paper masquerading as an investigative report” is being peddled to media outlets to attempt to link the Binays, including daughters Senator Nancy Binay and Congresswoman Abigail Binay-Campos, to the controversy on the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).

    “This is but a poor attempt to drag the Vice President’s name into the controversy. Since the PDAF scandal broke, the records of the Vice President, Senator Nancy, and Congresswoman Abby have been made open to the public for review. These records will show that the projects were properly implemented and fully liquidated,” Salgado said.

    “We had hoped that given the highly charged political atmosphere arising from the revelations of Janet Lim-Napoles, the Ombudsman’s OSP would have shown greater prudence to avoid allegations that it is persecuting those who are not allies of the administration,” he said.

    On May 20, the Sandiganbayan Third Division issued a hold departure order (HDO) against the Vice President’s wife after the Ombudsman decided to reopen cases against her.

    The HDO was in connection with malversation charges filed against her for the purchase of beds for the Ospital ng Makati during her tenure as Makati mayor.

    Meanwhile, Mrs. Binay hit the prosecution for allegedly trying to extend their time to file comment to her demurrer, after state lawyers motioned for the removal of the said demurrer from case records.

    Binay’s camp asserted that the demurrer is a pleading, not a motion, thus it does not require notice and hearing as the prosecution argued.

    “Herein Accused strongly entertains the idea that the instant Motion to Expunge is nothing but a dilatory ploy to obtain an extended period within which to file its Comment/Opposition to Accused’s Demurrer to Evidence,” the defense said.

    But state prosecutors said the claim that the demurrer is not a motion was a “bizarre allegation.

    “We instead, implore the accused and/or counsels to stick to the issues and conduct this litigation in a fair and civilized manner. After all this is a serious case being heard before the Sandiganbayan, no less,” they said.

    “Given that her pleading contains the . . . prayer specifically asking for the dismissal of the case, Binay’s motion can only be considered as a litigious motion and nothing less. It cannot by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as a simple pleading,” the prosecution said, adding that a demurrer is akin to a motion to dismiss.


    Please follow our commenting guidelines.

    Comments are closed.