Ex-VP Binay refuses to enter plea in P2.2-B Makati carpark case

MANILA, Philippines - Former Vice President Jejomar Binay Sr. on Wednesday refused to enter any plea for his criminal cases in connection with the alleged anomalous construction of the P2.2-billion Makati parking building.

Binay underwent a conditional arraignment before the Sandiganbayan Third Division on Wednesday as a precondition for the court's consideration of his earlier motion seeking to be granted permission to travel to Israel from May 15 to 29.

In his motion, Binay said he wants to go on a “spiritually-charged pilgrimage” to Holy Land with his wife Elenita Binay and some of their children, in-laws and grandchildren.

After each case information sheet was read before him by the clerk of court, Binay, through his lawyer Joseph Joel Castillo, told the court that he is not entering any plea.

The court, in turn, entered a plea of “not guilty” for him, in accordance with the rules of procedure.

Binay immediately left the Sandiganbayan building after his arraignment, ignoring the media.

Refusal to enter plea is a legal strategy usually employed by the defense to show that the accused is not acknowledging the validity of the case information. The accused is also usually advised by his or her legal counsel not to enter any plea if their camp has a plan of questioning the charges before the higher court.

Under the rules of proceedings, an accused must undergo a conditional arraignment before the court can take cognizance of his or her motion to travel.

Under the rules, “a conditional arraignment will stand as the regular arraignment of the accused” if no amended in the case information was made by the prosecution.

Binay is facing nine counts of falsification of public documents, four counts of graft and one count of malversation of public funds in connection with the alleged overpriced construction of the P2.2 billion Makati City Hall Building II, also referred as the Makati parking building.

During the hearing of his motion to travel last month, the former vice president's camp asked the court to modify the regular rules and allow him undergo a conditional arraignment but that his plea be nullified or stricken out of the court records once he comes back to the country.

In a formal motion filed after the hearing, Binay said he is seeking an amendment of the rules in order to “preserve his rights and remedies” including the possible filing of a motion to quash the cases.

The court, however, denied the motion for “lack of merit.” The court maintains that Binay may still file a motion to quash even after he is arraigned.

The court, further maintained that Binay's arraignment will not affect or prejudge the petition for review that he earlier filed before the Supreme Court (SC) questioning the investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman on the alleged anomalies surrounding the construction of the Makati parking building.

In his petition before the SC, Binay said he was subjected to a preliminary investigation by the ombudsman when he was still the vice president. Binay maintained that under the 1987 Constitution, an impeachable officer such as the vice president is immune from any suit and legal investigation during his incumbency.