BAGUIO CITY, PhilippinesWhy should reelection effectively absolve an

official from administrative liability? Or put another way, isnt it about time that
a doctrine that gives erring officials a clean slate once they are reelected be
abandoned?
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno gave the lawyers of Makati City Mayor
Junjun Binay a dressing down during the second round of oral arguments on
Tuesday on the power of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales to suspend
the Makati mayor, scolding the Binay lawyers for insisting that an official, once
reelected, may no longer be made to answer for administrative violations.
In a lengthy and heated exchange with Binay lawyer Sandra Marie OlasoCoronel, an obviously incensed Sereno confronted her former law student
with the possible implications of her argument that the doctrine of condonation
covers the Makati mayor.
This is the kind of legal regime you want us to propagate? We believe that
this is wrong and you are telling us to continue along that doctrine? Sereno
told Coronel in an interpellation that lasted for more than an hour.
Coronel could barely respond.
You will insist on a rule of procedure that will wreak havoc on our
constitutional framework? Sereno said, as she reminded Coronel that as a
professor at the University of the Philippines College of Law, she taught her
students the virtue of honesty and integrity.
Affront to Constitution
Sereno, a known advocate of clean governance and honest public service,
considered the Binay camps position an affront to the Constitution and to
future generations of Filipinos, and the kind of governance that jurisprudence
would allow.
It is the duty of this court to promote honesty and integrity in public service,
because the Constitution is, first and foremost, our most important document
and covenant that we must uphold, she said.
Because if we uphold your theory, we are basically going to say, with respect
to all those laws, those offenses and those penalties, they cannot apply to
reelected officials. That is what youre asking us to do, Sereno said.

The principle invoked by the Binay lawyerswhich Sereno described as an

unfortunate doctrine based on bad case laweffectively extinguishes a
reelected officials administrative liability from alleged wrongdoing during a
previous term.
The doctrine emanates from a 1959 case involving the mayor of San Jose,
Nueva Ecija province, in which the Supreme Court ruled, based on American
jurisprudence, that the mayor was to be effectively absolved from
administrative charges by virtue of reelection.
Binays lawyers invoked the doctrine to challenge a March 11 order from the
Ombudsman putting Binay under preventive suspension pending an
investigation into his alleged involvement in the irregularities in the
construction of the Makati parking building.
The Court of Appeals stopped Morales suspension order with a temporary
restraining order on March 16, prompting the Ombudsman to raise to the high
court her jurisdictional conflict with the appellate court.
Doctrine outdated
Sereno was joined by Associate Justices Antonio Carpio and Estela PerlasBernabe in raising the possibility of reviewing the condonation doctrine.
The Chief Justice said the Ombudsman-Binay case that is before the court
now was a chance to make up.
So if we want to fight corruption, this court will have to make a strong stand
for honesty and integrity, she said.
Carpio said the 1959 doctrine was established under the guidance of the 1935
Constitution, suggesting that it may be outdated.
But Binays lawyers said the high court was barred from even reviewing this
doctrine.
The opportunity to revisit the doctrine of condonation will have to await a
proper case filed before this court when an error of judgment is alleged in
an appeal, Coronel said.
Much stricter

But Carpio said the power to condone is a constitutional power of the

President.
We should revisit it because the power to pardon in administrative cases is a
constitutional power of the President, which we cannot usurp. So its a good
ground to revisit that doctrine, he said.
Carpio said the foundation of the doctrine was the 1935 Constitution, but the
1987 Constitution has become much stricter about public accountability.
He cited Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which stipulates that public
officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve
them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency; act with
patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
Carpio said this provision meant that public officials can be accountable at all
times, even after the end of their service.
The issue now is, Can this court say to the people of Makati that we are
granting [them] the power to pardon? Can we do that? he asked.
The 1959 doctrine says the high court has done so, Carpio said, so we
should probably review it.
20 times judiciary budget
The last to interpellate in the four-hour-long oral arguments on Tuesday,
Sereno directed both the lawyers of Binay and the Ombudsman to measure
the condonation doctrine against the Filipino soul.
Sereno showed a 63-page slide show, breaking down all the evidence that the
Ombudsman has so far gathered against Binay, laws governing administrative
liabilities of local government officials, and jurisprudence on administrative
cases against local officials.
In her presentation, Sereno also cited the magnitude of public funds that local
officials handleP389.8 billion for disbursement this year and P341.5 billion
in 2014and the kind of impact that condonation would have if officials were
allowed to get off easy by virtue of this doctrine.
Do you imagine the magnitude of that money? That is nearly 20 times [the
budget] of the entire judiciary, she said.

Were talking about the magnitude of the problem were facing here. The
social impact the message is saying is very important for the life of this
country, Sereno said.
Binay absent
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen questioned Binays absence in Tuesdays
proceedings.
Why is Mayor Binay not here to face the highest court? The Ombudsman was
here last week. Is there a reason he doesnt care to appear? Leonen asked
lawyer Claro Certeza.
Its not a matter of him not caring, replied Certeza.
Is it not an indication of his interest also as to the results of this case? Or the
respect for this court? Leonen said.
Im definitely sure our client respects the court, Certeza said.
The lawyer said he believed there was no order requiring the Makati mayors
presence.
Morales appeared last week during the first round of oral arguments on her
petition against Binays plea against his suspension before the Court of
Appeals, even taking questions from justices.
Ill-prepared lawyer
Leonen also noted how ill-prepared Certeza was to tackle questions about the
Ombudsmans supplemental petition, which was filed on Monday last week to
update the petition after the appellate courts issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction, extending the temporary restraining order (TRO) it earlier issued.
Im sorry but I would have expected more from you having heard you speak
in the media, seeming to be prepared to argue on all points, Leonen told
Certeza.
The magistrate also cited how Binays refusal to comply with the suspension
order caused confusion in Makati City.

Then it was your client that caused it all. No, not your client. It was your legal
advice, said Leonen, correcting himself.
Certeza disagreed and said: We take exception, with due respect, your
honor.
3 justices recused
Three more magistrates joined Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta in recusing
themselves from the case for undisclosed reasons.
These were Associate Justices Arturo Brion, Presbitero Velasco Jr. and
Francis Jardeleza, who were all present during the oral arguments last week.
The latter two even interpellated Acting Solicitor General Florin Hilbay who
represented Morales.
The high court gave the two sides a nonextendable period of 30 days to file
their memoranda on the case, their last chance to persuade the magistrates.

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/687005/sc-scolds-binay-lawyers-forwrong-doctrine#ixzz3YA3iYxug

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook