Junjun Binay questions transfer of libel case vs Trillanes to DOJ
Suspended Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO/RAFFY LERMA
The camp of suspended Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay on Wednesday questioned the transfer of venue from the Makati Prosecutors office to the Department of Justice (DOJ) of the hearing on the libel complaint he filed against Senator Antonio Trillanes IV.
Trillanes who failed to appear during the Preliminary Investigation has been slapped with a complaint for libel for accusing two Court of Appeals Associate Justices of receiving P25-million each in exchange for stopping the implementation of the six-month preventive suspension order imposed against the mayor by the Office of the Ombudsman.
In their motion for reconsideration, Binay, through Atty. Claro Certeza, said Trillanes’ camp failed to justify the need for the Makati Prosecutors Office to inhibit from the case and pass it to the DOJ for preliminary investigation.
READ: Mayor Binay files libel case against Trillanes
Under Section 57 of the 2008 Manual for Prosecutors, grounds for mandatory inhibition include: (a) he or his wife or child is an interested party the case; (b) related to either party by affinity or related to the counsel and (c) has been named executor, administrator, guardian or trustee of a party to the case.
Article continues after this advertisementHowever, in this case, Trillanes sought the inhibition of the entire Makati Prosecutors Office because the Makati City government provides allowances as well as administrative, logistical and personnel support to the judiciary and prosecutorial offices in its city.
Article continues after this advertisementREAD: Trillanes names 2 CA justices in Binay TRO ‘sale’
“Jurisprudence on voluntary inhibition provides the rudimentary rule that mere suspicion that the judge is partial is not enough. The movants have to show by clear and convincing evidence their charge of bias and partiality on the part of the judge or prosecutor sought to be inhibited,” the motion stated.
Certeza added transferring the complaint to the DOJ is also questionable because Justice Secretary Leila de Lima is one of the respondents in the contempt case they filed before the Court of Appeals.
De Lima, who is expected to be included in the Liberal Party’s senatorial lineup, issued a legal opinion saying the restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals against Mayor Binay’s suspension was “moot and academic.”
“It is very clear that the present government is against Binay and all the resources of the government is being used [against Binay]. So, it is very suspicious that they would insist that the DOJ should handle the case,” Certeza told reporters after the preliminary investigation
On the other hand, Atty. Judy Ann C. Bautista, counsel for Trillanes, said they believe there will be a fair hearing if the case will be moved to another venue.
“We believe na makakakuha kami ng mas magandang, favorable decision if [the complaint] is transferred at the DOJ (We believe we will get a favorable decision if the complain is transferred to the DOJ),” Bautista said. IDL
