“Considering that the Complaint appears to be patently bereft of the merit, the only inescapable conclusion is that plaintiff Binay’s suit is a sham,” she said.
Morales reply also dismissed Binay’s complaint as “an obvious publicity stunt calculated to harass and intimidate” her knowing that she will be the final approving authority in the event that the recommendation of the 2nd Special Panel handling the preliminary investigations is adverse to him.
Binay asked for P200 million for damages from the respondents who also include Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice, former Makati Vice-Mayor Ernesto Mercado, former Makati official Mario Hechanova, former Makati barangay official Renato Bondal, Nicolas Enciso, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Governor Amando Tetangco Jr, Insurance Commissioner Emmanuel Dooc, Securities and Exchange Commission chief Teresita J. Herbosa, and Julia Abad of the Anti-Money Laundering Council.
Binay has been the subject of a Senate investigation on the allegedly overpriced Makati City Hall parking building which has expanded into other issues like his sprawling hacienda in Batangas and led to the freezing of his bank accounts by the Anti- Money Laundering Council.
He faces plunder charges which are being investigated by the Ombudsman.
His son, Makati Mayor Jun-jun Binay, has also been implicated in the investigation on anomalous transactions in Makati. The younger Binay has been suspended by the Ombudsman.
On the defense of Binay that he is immune from suit because he, as vice president, can only be removed by impeachment just like the President, Morales said his being “an impeachable officer does not ipso facto free him from being the subject of investigations.”
“It bears emphasis that he is being investigated for criminal acts allegedly committed when he was City Mayor,” she said.
Morales said even impeachable officers are within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Morales said the Constitution underscores that “public office is a public trust. No official, from the lowest to the highest, is exempt from accountability when it gave the Office of the Ombudsman the power to investigate any serious misconduct in office allegedly committed by officials removable by impeachment, for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment (R.A 6770).
“What the 1987 Constitution contemplates respecting impeachable officers is that during their tenure or term of office, they cannot be subject of criminal offenses filed with the court, which carry the penalty of removal from office or any penalty, the service of which amounts to removal from office,” the Ombudsman said.
Morales stressed: “The Office of the Ombudsman is not a court. It cannot thus impose any penalty amounting to removal from office in relation to pending criminal complaints. It may, however, after the termination of the preliminary investigations, recommend the indictment of the therein respondent if probable cause is established or, if warranted in cases involving impeachable officers, the filing of an impeachment complaint under Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution; conversely lack or paucity of evidence presented at those investigations may lead to the dismissal of the criminal charges.”
The Vice President, Morales said, cannot challenge the conduct of an inquiry by the Office of the Ombudsman simply because he is an impeachable officer.
P200M suit!!!
Kailangan pa ni Nognog ng mas maraming capital para manalo sa election 2016.
Malaki rin and 200M
Elected official si Binay, logic dictates he is within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Di ba?
Chi, ang problema eh walang logic si Binay.
Sa pagkapal ng mukaha niya, numipis naman ang utak at isip pati konsensya.
Did the Supreme Court grant a special privilege to Enrile?
The dissent opines so. It quotes the Constitution as follows:
The dissent states that:
It then concludes:
Wala ba talagang precedent? How did the 1935 Constitution word it?
Pareho di ba? Now how did the Supreme Court in 1946 interpret that provision?
lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1946/oct1946/gr_l-982_1946.html (Tatlong w sa harap)
That was a unanimous decision, penned by Justice Felicisimo Feria, the father of the Cory-appointed Justice Jose Feria. Justice Perfecto appeared to dissent, but only because the Supreme Court ordered the lower court to order the release of De La Rama. Perfecto wanted the Supreme Court itself to order the release.
What was the precedent cited by the Supreme Court?
[De La Rama case above.]
Uy. At ano naman ang kaso niyang Benigno Aquino na yan, for which he asked for bail? Another case provides the answer.
lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1948/may1948/gr_l-1801_1948.html (Tatlong w sa harap)
Kamaganak ba yan ng Penoy? Yes. Si Lolo and namesake, na naparatangang Makapili.
Was the evidence of guilt strong? What do you think? He served in the government established by the Japanese. He was the Speaker of the National Assembly of the Japanese-sponsored Philippine government. “Under the definition of the treason in the Revised Penal Code, active collaboration with the Japanese and association with them during the war in the Philippines may constitute treason, a capital offense.” (Teehankee v. Rovira (G.R. No. L-101 December 20, 1945)
lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1945/dec1945/gr_l-101_1945.html (Tatlong w sa harap)
So kung ang Makapili, faced with a charge of treason is allowed to post bail, ito pa kayang naparatangang magnanakaw lang? Note, treason is the first enumerated crime in the Revised Penal Code; the first, and most grievous violation against the Republic.
What about the phrase the evidence of guilt is strong? Note the quote above, some (not Aquino) were already “convicted in the first instance” (by the trial court, at naka-appeal na). Clearly, there was already a finding after trial, that the evidence is strong – not only to deny bail, but to convict beyond reasonable doubt. Yet they were released on bail.
So was Enrile granted a special privilege? Perhaps – the same privilege accorded Makapilis.
Sino nga pala ang mga umayon sa mga kaso sa itaas? Justices whose shoestrings the dissenting justices are unfit to untie; the likes of CJ Cesar Bengzon, CJ Paras, and CJ Moran, Briones, Hilado and Pablo (in Teehankee).
Humanitarian pala. Ako hindi naniniwala sa humanitarian, hindi rin ako vegetarian. Vaginatarian siguro. Pero matinik talaga si Estelito Mendoza.
Parang si sax.
Ambabagal kasi tuloy naunahan na sila ni Binay. Si OMB Morales wala pang naifile, si Binay andami na. Nakaka-sham na kaso na.