MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) should have not abandoned the condonation doctrine when it ruled on the case of dismissed Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr., according to three justices.
In a 10-page concurring and dissenting opinion released yesterday, Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin objected to the majority decision of the SC justices abandoning the doctrine that condones acts committed by reelected officials during their previous term.
Associate Justices Jose Perez and Teresita Leonardo-De Castro concurred with Bersamin’s opinion.
Bersamin said there was no need to decide on the constitutionality of the doctrine set by the high court itself in resolving the petition filed by the Office of the Ombudsman questioning the validity of the Court of Appeals (CA)’s resolution that enjoined it from implementing Binay’s preventive suspension over the allegedly anomalous Makati City Hall Building project.
The three justices agreed the condonation doctrine was misapplied in Binay’s case by the CA in the first place, saying it could only be applied to the administrative case against the mayor.
In its ruling, the SC held that the condonation doctrine, which became part of Philippine jurisprudence in 1959, should be abandoned for lack of basis in the 1987 Constitution.
The three magistrates, however, explained the condonation doctrine should be applied only in case of the reelection of a public officer who is sought to be permanently removed from office as a result of his misconduct and not while he is undergoing investigation.
They pointed out that condonation applies to the penalty imposed after the conduct of an inquiry and not on Binay’s preventive suspension issued by the ombudsman.
According to Bersamin, preventive suspension pending conduct of an investigation was not yet a penalty in itself but merely a precaution to allow the ombudsman to probe the charges without the possibility of the respondent influencing the witnesses against him.