De Lima: CA can’t stop suspension on Binay

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima insisted that the Court of Appeals (CA) has no authority to stop the enforcement of the 60-day preventive suspension order on Makati City Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay.

In yesterday’s 15th National Lawyers Convention attended by over 2,000 lawyers from all over the country, De Lima said the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the CA was rendered “moot and academic” by the enforcement of the suspension order last March 16.

De Lima reacted to a discussion by CA Associate Justice Magdangal de Leon who spoke about the challenges of the appellate practice to those attending the convention spearheaded by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

De Leon, senior member of the appellate court’s ninth division in Manila, said the CA is prohibited from issuing TROs only on decisions or orders of the anti-graft office.

Since the case on Binay involves a preventive suspension pending investigation, De Leon said the appellate court can issue a TRO.

But De Lima, who heard De Leon’s talk, disagreed.

Exception
She cited section 14 of the Republic Act 6770 or The Ombudsman Act of 1989 which states that “no writ of injunction shall be issued by any court to delay an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman.”

De Lima said the exception comes when “there is prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.”

“I was listening to Hon. Justice De Leon, the earlier speaker. He was citing  jurisprudence. But may I add because it seems to point only to final orders of the Ombudsman,” she told the participants at the start of her speech.

De Leon is not handling the contempt petition against De Lima, who went on to cite the Ombudsman Act of 1989 that prohibits any court, including the CA, from issuing a TRO or an injunction to stop investigations conducted by the anti-graft office.

“The essence of the provision is clearly to let the Ombudsman do its job. It has been difficult enough for the Ombudsman to hold powerful people accountable. Now, let us not make it more difficult by allowing court processes to derail its investigations,” she said.

Advisory
Binay earlier requested the CA to cite in contempt Interior and Local Secretary Mar Roxas, Makati Vice Mayor Romulo “Kid” Peña, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales and De Lima and several others for allegedly ignoring the TRO which would have allowed him to continue to sit as Makati City mayor.

The CA Sixth Division in Manila ordered the respondents to comment on the contempt case filed by Binay.

The appeals court, through Associate Justice Jose Reyes Jr., also scheduled a hearing on the petition on March 30 and 31.

The other members of the sixth division are Justices Jose Sabio Jr. and Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal.

De Lima said she was surprised when she learned that Binay impleaded her as one of the respondents in the contempt petition when she did not participate in defying the TRO issued by the CA.

“I only have a very brief response to that. What I issued was a mere opinion on request of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). And as you very well know, opinion of the secretary of justice is actually, merely advisory,” she said.

Under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, indirect contempt is committed by anyone who disobeys or resists “lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court.”

If the respondent is adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding P30,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.