Diametrically opposing views have bedeviled the temporary restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals regarding the suspension of Makati City Mayor Jejomar Erwin Binay Jr. by the Office of the Ombudsman.
On one side, the Department of Justice has allied itself with the Ombudsman in positing that the TRO came too late as the very thing it was supposed to “restrain” (suspension) was already implemented and an acting mayor has been sworn in); hence, it was “moot and academic.”
A caboodle of Binay lawyers are understandably up in arms on the other side of this tug of war. Meaning business, as if their professional survival depended on it, they have gone gung-ho in filing motions for contempt in the Court of Appeals to punish Justice Secretary Leila de Lima and Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales for defying the appellate court’s TRO.
Surprisingly, the president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines was reported as having joined the fray (lest it be misconstrued, he was speaking only for himself). And lawyer Harry Roque once again managed to get in the middle of this yet another national divertissement. The two vigorously contended that whether late or not, the rule of law requires that the Court of Appeals’ TRO should be obeyed. And if there is any question at all regarding the validity of its order, let the Court of Appeals itself be the judge of that!
Lost in all these interpretations and posturings is the basic element of decency. Given the gravity and magnitude of the corruption charges (involving hundreds of millions in public funds), common sense requires that official records and documents be preserved as evidence. That was the clear intent of the “suspension”—to snooker the parties in custody of those records and documents from shredding or tampering with them. The law has set six months as enough time for probers to collate and preserve evidence of wrongdoing, if any. Thereafter, the officials concerned can always return to work, so what’s their problem? Why are they fighting tooth and nail to cling to their posts and keep official files under wraps?
We submit that more important than any gobbledygook about the TRO’s legality is the public concern for documentary integrity—the only way the corruption charges can be proved, or quashed if transactions are found aboveboard! Indeed, if the accused have nothing to hide, they should have nothing to fear. But perhaps, that really is the problem! All men of honest-to-goodness intentions should be clamoring to get to the bottom of it, rather than wasting time quibbling over technicalities.
—STEPHEN L. MONSANTO, Monsanto Law Office, Loyola Heights, QC, lexsquare.firm@gmail.com