MANILA – Even with the Supreme Court (SC) abandoning the condonation doctrine, Vice President Jejomar “Jojo” Binay’s camp still saw as a ‘moral victory’ the court’s decision to also declare that the Office of the Ombudsman was not spared from ‘any appeal of application for remedy against its decision before any court.’
“The SC is right. Even during Martial Law, court still existed. There was no gap in the process. The Ombudsman’s decision can still be appealed. It’s part of the process,” Binay said.
The Vice President’s spokesperson for political affairs Rico Quicho disclosed that the SC’s ruling on Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales was favorable to suspended Makati Mayor Erwin “Junjun” Binay.
“The Supreme Court decision in the case involving Makati Mayor Junjun Binay is a moral victory. It vindicates the position of the mayor that his suspension was invalid and unlawful,” Quicho said in a statement.
In an en banc decision, the High Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ (CA) proceedings on Mayor Binay’s petition which challenged his suspension and invoked the condonation doctrine. It also declared as unconstitutional Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 and gave courts limited power to review the Ombudsman’s rulings.
“The decision is a reaffirmation that under a democracy, the acts of agents of government can be reviewed by the courts,” Quicho said.
“No government agency or entity should be excluded from the principle of checks and balances since this will encourage and even foster abuse of power, especially against political opponents of the ruling party,” he added.
It can be recalled that Ombudsman Morales earlier issued two six-month preventive suspension orders against Mayor Binay over his alleged involvement in the anomalous Makati Science High School building and the overpriced Makati City Hall parking building.
Meanwhile, Quicho also revealed their camp received reports that the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) was set to file a civil forfeiture case against VP Binay come the election period.
However, such acts were prohibited as Section 16 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) stated that ‘no case for money laundering may be filed against and no assets shall be frozen, attached or forfeited to the prejudice of a candidate for an electoral office during an election period.’
“This provision was included in the AMLA precisely to prevent abusing the powers of AMLC for political harassment,” the spokesman pointed out.