5,771 guests

CA tells Mar, De Lima to answer Binay contempt raps

  • Written by Hector Lawas
  • Published in Nation
  • Read: 2735

The Court of Appeals yesterday ordered Interior and Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas and Justice Secretary Leila de Lima to answer the petition for contempt lodged against them by suspended Makati City Major Jejomar Erwin “Jun Jun” Binay Jr. in connection with the latter’s suspension.
The CA also asked Ombudsman Conchita Morales and acting Makati City Mayor Romulo Peña to file their answer. They were all given three days to file their answer.
Furthermore,the CA scheduled for hearing Binay’s complaint for contempt on March 30 and 31.
Binay sought redress before the CA after the respondent-officials along with several police officers allegedly refused to honor the temporary restraining order it issued Monday stopping his suspension.
Lawyer Patricia Alvarez stressed the power to cite in contempt is the CA’s way of punishing those who disrespect its decisions.
“The fact that there are claimants that Mayor Binay should not supposedly be acting as mayor and that he’s preventively suspended that would be counter to the TRO,” she said.
Meanwhile, the law office tagged in the allegation of corruption against Vice-President Jejomar Binay and his family asked the Supreme Court (SC) to stop government’s reported examination of its bank accounts over suspected money laundering activities, and secure an order declaring all records and information obtained from this examination as “inadmissible” in any proceeding.
In a 44-page petition, the Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza and Binay Law Offices (SPCMB Law), the law firm representing the Vice-President and his alleged dummy, businessman Antonio Tiu, urged the SC to stop the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) from proceeding with its examination and scrutiny of SPCMB Law’s bank accounts.
SPCMB Law argued that its rights to privacy and due process have been violated by the AMLC and CA, as well as its lawyer-client privilege. The AMLC petition for the examination of the law firm’s bank accounts was filed with the appellate court, which subsequently granted it with “grave abuse of discretion,” SPCMB stressed.