CA upholds Junjun Binay’s permanent disqualification from public office

The Court of Appeals (CA) has upheld its decision that dismissed former Makati mayor Jejomar "Junjun" Binay, Jr. and perpetually disqualified him from holding public office over procurement anomalies surrounding the Makati Science High School building.

The Former Eighth Division denied Binay's motion for partial reconsideration against the May 2019 decision that found him guilty of serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in connection with the construction of Phase VI of the building.

The CA's earlier decision affirmed the Office of the Ombudsman's finding of guilt.

Binay, acting on behalf of the city government, allegedly entered into a P165.26-million contract with service contractor Hilmarc "despite glaring irregularities in the procurement of the construction services of Phase VI."

The irregularities allegedly include the posting of incomplete information in the published invitation to bid, preventing prospective bidders from participating on time and thus favoring Hilmarc.

In his motion for partial reconsideration, Binay said he should have been exonerated as the head of the procuring entity because he acted in good faith.

He said "nothing was apparent which would have prompted him to withhold his signature on the BAC Resolution, Notice of Award, Notice to Commence Work, Certificate of Completion and Acceptance and the disbursement vouchers."

The former mayor cited the case of Arias v. Sandiganbayan, which the CA said laid down the doctrine that "heads of offices may, in good faith, rely to a certain extent on the acts of their subordinates 'who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations.'"

But in a December 20 resolution, the court pointed out differences between the Arias and Binay cases; for one, it said Arias is a criminal case, Binay's administrative, requiring different standards of proof to justify a conviction.

The CA also said that unlike in the Arias case, Binay's participation "was not limited to affixing his signature on the documents involved," and that he was expected to exercise "reasonable diligence" in ensuring compliance with bidding procedures.

"Had Binay, Jr. exercised the due diligence expected of him, he would have easily noticed that the requirements under R.A. 9184 were not complied with," the CA said.

The court said Binay's approval of the Bids and Awards Committee's resolution recommending Hilmarc "was not an empty formality because he may approve or reject any and all bids, declare a failure of bidding, or not award a contract pursuant to Section 41 of R.A. 9184."

Republic Act No. 9184 is the procurement law.

"The rules on competitive public bidding and those concerning the disbursement of public funds are imbued with public interest," the CA said.

"Government officials whose work relates to these matters are expected to exercise greater responsibility in ensuring compliance with the pertinent rules and regulations," it added.

The CA also denied for lack of merit the motions for reconsideration filed by 13 other petitioners, saying they raised arguments that had already been considered in the May 2019 ruling.

Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto Martin wrote the recent resolution. Associate Justices Ramon Bato, Jr. and Ramon Cruz concurred. —NB, GMA News