The defenses of VP Binay analyzed.

See - (104) The defenses of VP Binay analyzed. - 1.... - Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices


1. Defense No. 1. - Allegations of Plunder against Vice President Jejomar Binay committed when he was still mayor of Makati cannot be used as a basis for his impeachment. Binay could only be ousted for irregular acts committed by him as Vice President.

COMMENT:

Impeachment is an impractical remedy at this time. No one in Congress or in Civil Society is talking about impeachment now. National elections will already be held in May next year. There is no more time for impeachment.

The crime of Plunder is punishable by Reclusion Perpetua. (Sec. 1, R.A. 7080). The prescriptive period for Plunder is 20 years. (Sec. 6, R.A. 7080). The right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or from their nominees or transferees is not be barred by prescription, laches or estoppel. (Id.).

2. Defense No. 2. - The past re-elections of Binay as Makati City mayor negates whatever impeachment grounds may be raised against him. He is immune from suit. He could not be slapped with criminal charges while he sits as Vice President. He must be impeached first.

COMMENT:

We are not talking of impeachment here and now. We are talking of a criminal investigation and prosecution for the crime of Plunder.

A “spare tire” in the Executive Department is not immune from suit. The Constitution does not provide that the Vice President is immune from suit. Jurisprudence has not vested the Vice President with immunity from suit. (Jurisprudence declares that the President is immune from suit, though).

The election of Binay as a “spare tire” (i.e., Vice President) in the Executive Department or his past re-elections as Makati City mayor did not exempt him from criminal investigation, prosecution, and liability. The Constitution and Jurisprudence do not give him that special status. No one is above the law. The justice system exempts no criminals from prosecution. The moving principles behind the Constitution are accountability and justice.

3. Defense No. 3. - The Ombudsman is hell bent on filing a plunder case against Binay. The Ombudsman is not giving Binay ample time to explain himself. The Malacanang Palace (Office of the President), the Liberal Party, the Senate, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Office of the Ombudsman are conspiring to oust him from office.

COMMENT:

The incumbent Ombudsman is a trustworthy Jurist. She served the Judiciary with distinction and integrity during the years when the Binay Political Dynasty was raiding the Makati City coffers. Between the self-serving words of Binay and the independent mind and untainted image of the Ombudsman, the Filipinos believe the latter.

The Ombudsman is not stupid enough to deprive Binay of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution or the procedural provisions of the Ombudsman Act of 1989.

Binay is hallucinating in charging the whole Government of conspiracy. A paranoid and a political narcissist, Binay suffers from a delusion of moral purity.


Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.
Partner, Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices
Founder, Las Pinas City Bar Association
Past Vice Pres., IBP PPLM Chapter 
Prof. of Law, FEU IL (ret.)