Sandigan to resolve Jejomar Binay's bid to dismiss cases soon

MANILA, Philippines — Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang said her division is now working double time to resolve the motion of former Vice President Jejomar Binay praying for the dismissal of his various criminal cases in connection with the alleged overpriced construction of the P2.2 billion Makati parking building.

 

“Minamadali na din namin actually, kasi of course this is part of our efforts to speed up the resolution of cases,” Tang said in a press conference Friday.

 

In July of this year, the Office of the Ombudsman filed four counts of graft, nine counts of falsification of public documents and one count of malversation against Binay. Meanwhile, his son, former Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr. was charged with four counts of graft, six counts of falsification and one count of malversation.

 

Also charged as co-accused of the Binay father and son were 22 other former and incumbent officials of Makati City.

 

However, the Sandiginbayan Third Division chaired by Tang has yet to rule on whether there is probable cause to proceed with a full-blown trial of the cases.

 

Tang said this is because the court is taking its time to resolve the respective Motions for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause filed by the Binays and the other respondents.

 

In their motions, the Binay father and son, as well as their co-accused, prayed for the dismissal of the cases citing various grounds including lack of evidence and the absence of the elements of the offenses charged against them, such as conspiracy.

 

Tang said the court is faced with more than 20 motions in connection with the cases.

 

“It's under study because there are many accused and they have filed separate motions... Siyempre hihimay-himayin mo yun isa-isa para (you have to carefully study each motion so) you can come up with a judicious determination of all the grounds that are raised in their individual motions.

 

“Hindi naman basta mo na lang ide-deny 'yan or iga-grant 'yan without justifying its denial or its grant (you cannot simply deny or grant the motion without justifying the grounds for such decision),” she added.

 

In the case information sheets, the Ombudsman said the Binay father and son, during their respective terms as mayor of Makati, conspired with the other respondents to carry out a sham bidding as well as the overpriced construction of the P2.28-billion Makati City Hall Building II also referred as the Makati parking building.

 

The Ombudsman said the implementation of the project, which was divided into five phases, took place from 2007 to 2013 despite the absence of approved design standards, contract plans, agency cost estimates, detailed engineering and programs of work, among others.

 

The Binays had earlier vehemently denied the allegations claiming that the filing of the cases was part of the previous administration's demolition job in connection with the 2016 elections in which the older Binay ran for president.

Meanwhile, Tang said the anti-graft court is also poised to speed up the trial of cases against former and incumbent lawmakers charged in connection with the multibillion-peso pork barrel scam.

 

Tang said 2017 is a promising year for the anti-graft court as the trial proper of the cases against former Sens. Jinggoy Estrada and Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. is about to commence in January.

 

It was in June 2014 when the Ombudsman filed plunder and graft cases against Revilla, Estrada, former Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile as well as the alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles.

 

Revilla, Estrada and Napoles remain in detention after the Sandiganbayan denied their respective motions to post bail. Enrile, on the other hand, was granted bail by the Supreme Court (SC) in August 2015.

 

The trial of the cases against Enrile remains in limbo after he filed in October of this year a motion to quash seeking the dismissal of the cases.

 

“Sa Third Division, in the case of former Senator Enrile, if these motions to quash were not filed, probably we would have started (the trial) already,” Tang said.

 

“But as said by the Supreme Court, it should not only be speed. At the same time, there should also be justice. So sabi nila (SC), justice must not be placed at the mercy of speed. They should both go together... That is what we are trying to do, the best way we can do it,” Tang said.