Ombudsman tells SC: Evidence vs Binay 'strong'

By Asad Qurehi.

The evidence against Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin "Junjun" Binay is strong, the Ombudsman told the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales directly defended in open court before her former colleagues at the Supreme Court (SC) the 6-month preventive suspension order she issued against Binay involving administrative charges for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for the allegedly anomalous P2.7 billion Makati City Hall Building 2.
The high court heard oral arguments on Tuesday on the Ombudsman's petition against the temporary restraining order (TRO) the Court of Appeals (CA) issued on the suspension order.
Morales said "conspiracy was apparent" based on evidence before her office against Binay and his co-respondents.
She said these pieces of evidence consist of the following:
- sworn statements from several witnesses, including an alleged losing bidder which actually did not participate in the bidding;
- members of the Makati City Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) who claimed that irregularities were committed in the bidding process;
- notices of awards, BAC resolutions, contracts and vouchers signed by Binay or those he caused to be released pertaining to the project; and,
- falsifications involving the alleged invitations to bid in publications that later turned to be untrue.
She also pointed out that "after reelection the mayor caused the release of payment for a transaction that violated the [Commission on Audit] Circular of 2012 because the supporting documentary evidence were not attached to cause the release of the payments."
"Evidence is strong... as my basis in thinking that there was strong evidence for misconduct, dishonesty, oppression, neglect of duty... conspiracy is apparent. There appears to be conspiracy," Morales said.
Morales said that there is a "necessity" to place Binay under preventive suspension in order to "preserve" documentary evidence in connection with the case.
The Ombudsman, however, told magistrates that it has not yet been established whether there is "substantial evidence" against Binay and this will be determined in the course of the continuing investigation.
Solicitor General Florin Hilbay, who argued on behalf of the anti-graft office, stressed that the TRO and subsequent writ of preliminary injunction issued by the CA on the suspension order "impairs" that investigation, and, therefore, "violate the law."
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintained that under Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act, no writ of injunction may be issued by any court other than the SC on any decision or findings of the Ombudsman.