Binay insists on having separate trial from son Junjun

MANILA, Philippines — Former vice president Jejomar Binay Sr. has maintained that he and his son Erwin “Junjun” Binay Sr. should have a separate trial of their criminal cases which all stemmed from the alleged overpriced construction of the P2.2 billion Makati parking building during their respective term as city mayor.?

In his 22-page motion for reconsideration filed before the Sandiganbayan Third Division, Binay Sr. though his legal counsels, slammed the anti-graft court's raffle committee, chaired by Associate Justice Oscar Herrera Jr., for its supposed arbitrary decision to consolidate his cases with the earlier cases filed against his son.?

Binay Sr. said the Sandiganbayan's decision was contrary to its own rules which mandates the raffling of all the filed cases.

“With all due respect to the Honorable Court, the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan explicitly provides that all cases should be raffled and nowhere in the rules does it allow the automatic consolidation of unraffled cases to pending cases before the court,” Binay's appeal read.?

"The raffle of cases is vital to the administration of justice because it is intended to ensure impartial adjudication of cases and obviates public suspicion regarding assignment of cases to predetermined judges," he added?

Binay Sr. is facing four counts of graft, nine counts of falsification of public documents and one count of malversation in connection with his alleged involvement in the alleged rigged bidding and overpriced construction of the Makati City Hall Building II, also referred as the Makati parking building.?

When the cases against Binay Sr. were filed by the Office of the Ombudsman in July last year, the Sandiganbayan raffle committee decided to no longer raffle the cases off. Instead, they were assigned to the Third Division, which is already handling the cases against the younger Binay.?

The younger Binay is facing four counts of graft, six counts of falsification and one count of malversation in connection with the Makati parking anomaly.?

The Third Division had earlier denied Binay Sr.'s motion to raffle off his cases. The court said the consolidation of his cases with his son's is "necessary" as they emanated from "similar or the same transactions."?

Binay, in his motion for reconsideration, however, pointed out that the charges against him only pertain to phases I, II and III of the Makati Building project, while the charges against his son pertain to phases IV and V.