The Antecedent Facts:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESCOURT OF APPEALSMANILAJEJOMAR ERWIN S. BINAY, JR.,

Petitioner,

-versus-

CA-G.R. No. __________

For: Contempt

MANUEL A. ROXAS, II, in his capacity as the Secretary of Interior and Local Government and Ex-Officio Chairman of the National Police Commission, RENATO BRION, in his capacity as the Director of Department of Interior and Local Government for the National Capital Region, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, POLICE CHIEF DIRECTOR CARMELO VALMORIA, POLICE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT HENRY RANOLA, POLICE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT ELMER M. JAMIAS, and ROMULO KID PEA, Respondents.

x-----------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR CONTEMPT

Petitioner, JEJOMAR ERWIN S. BINAY, JR., most respectfully comes before this Honorable Court, and humbly avers:

1.Petitioner is the incumbent Mayor of the City of Makati. He may be served with processes, orders, and resolutions of the Honorable Court through the undersigned counsel at the address indicated below.

2.Respondent Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and Respondent Manuel A. Roxas, II (Respondent Roxas), as the Secretary of Interior and Local Government and Ex-Officio Chairman of the National Police Commission, are the persons directed to implement the suspension orders issued by the Office of the Ombudsman and have control and supervision over the Philippine National Police. Respondents DILG and Roxas hold office at the DILG-NAPOLCOM Center, EDSA corner Quezon Avenue, Quezon City 1100, where they may be served with pleadings, orders and other legal processes of the Honorable Court.

3.Respondent Renato Brion (Respondent Brion) is the Director of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) for the National Capital Region (NCR), and holds office at the DILG-NAPOLCOM Center, EDSA corner Quezon Avenue, Quezon City 1100, where he may be served with pleadings, orders and other legal processes of the Honorable Court. 4.Respondent Police Chief Director Carmelo Valmoria (Respondent Valmoria) is the Regional Director of the NCR Police Office (NCRPO) and holds office at the NCRPO Headquarters in Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City, where he may be served with pleadings, orders and other legal processes of the Honorable Court.

5. Respondent Police Chief Superintendent Henry Ranola (Respondent Ranola) is the Director of the Southern Police District and holds office in the NCRPO Headquarters at Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City, where he may be served with pleadings, orders and other legal processes of the Honorable Court.

6.Respondent Police Senior Superintendent Elmer M. Jamias (Respondent Jamias) is, at all times material hereto, the commanding officer of the thousands of members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Special Action Force (SAF) and the PNP Civil Disturbance Unit (collectively referred to as the PNP Force), and holds office at the NCRPO Headquarters in Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City, where he may be served with pleadings, orders and other legal processes of the Honorable Court.

7.Respondent Romulo Kid Pea is the Vice-Mayor of the City of Makati, who still claims to be the Acting Mayor of the City of Makati despite of the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Honorable Court, and holds office at the Office of the Vice-Mayor, Makati City Hall Building 1, J.P. Rizal Street, Brgy. Poblacion. Makati City 1200.

8.On 10 March 2015, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Order, directing the preventive suspension of Petitioner for six (6) months, due to the alleged anomalies that occurred during the five (5) phases of the procurement and construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building. The said Joint Order further directed Respondent Roxas to implement the preventive suspension of the Petitioner.9.On 11 March 2015, Petitioner filed with the Honorable Court a Petition for Certiorari (With Extremely Urgent Application for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction) of even date assailing the Joint Order for its patent illegality. Petitioner thus prayed that the Office of the Ombudsman and the DILG as well as their agents and/or representatives be enjoined from performing any act which would render the issues raised therein as moot or as would prejudice the rights of the Petitioner.

10.On 16 March 2015, the Honorable Court granted Petitioners application for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), to wit: In view of the seriousness of the issues raised in the Petition for Certiorari and the possible repercussions on the electorate who will unquestionably be affected by the suspension of their elective official, the Court resolves to grant petitioners prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order for a period of sixty (60) days from notice hereof, conditioned upon the posting by petitioner of a bond in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).

Meanwhile, let the hearing of the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction be set on March 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015 all at 2:00 oclock on the afternoon, and the Respondents, Hon. Conchita Carpio-Morales, in her capacity as the Ombudsman and the Department of Interior and Local Government, are hereby ORDERED to file their Comment on the Petition for Certiorari filed by herein petitioner within an inextendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of a copy hereof.

SO ORDERED.

11.Also on 16 March 2015, Petitioner duly complied with the condition imposed in the Honorable Courts Resolution granting the TRO by posting a cash bond in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 500,000.00). 12.However, despite due notice and receipt of the Honorable Courts Resolution granting Petitioners application for the TRO on the Joint Order preventively suspending Petitioner, Respondents nevertheless willfully and maliciously ignored and refused to comply with the Honorable Courts directive, as can be gleaned from the following events:12.1At around 12 noon of 16 March 2015, when various media outlets had already reported the issuance of the TRO enjoining the preventive suspension of Petitioner, the PNP Force numbering in the hundreds were already at the Makati City Hall and had barricaded its grounds. (Earlier in the day, the total number of the PNP Force even reached several thousands.)12.2At around 1:30 PM, Petitioner held a press conference and presented the Honorable Courts Resolution to the public. This caused the PNP Force to disperse and leave the Makati City Hall grounds and is a recognition that the preventive suspension of Petitioner had been already enjoined by the Honorable Court.

12.3At 3:09 PM, the DILG, headed by Respondent Roxas, received a Notice of Resolution from the Honorable Court, officially informing it that Petitioners application for the issuance of a TRO in connection with the Joint Order had been granted.

12.4However, at around 5:00 PM, despite due notice and receipt of the TRO, the PNP Force, upon orders of the DILG and instructions from Respondents Valmoria (as the Regional Director of the NCRPO) and Respondent Ranola (as Director of the Southern Police District), together with Respondent Jamias, went back to the Makati City Hall grounds and once again barricaded the entrance outside of the Makati City Hall Building 1 for the purpose of implementing and enforcing the enjoined Joint Order.

12.5United Nationalist Alliance (UNA) Secretary General, Atty. Jose Virgilio JV Bautista, then went to meet with Respondent Jamias, who presented himself as the commander of the PNP Force, to inquire why the PNP Force returned despite the issuance of the Honorable Courts Resolution granting the TRO, and glibly retorted that he was merely ordered by the DILG. 12.6When questioned as to who particularly in the DILG gave the order for the PNP Force to return, Respondent Jamias said Actually, aa.. Secretary.. aa.. Director Brion [referring to DILG National Capital Region (NCR) Director Renato Brion] requested the NCRPO... to assist them [referring to the DILG], in the implementation of the Suspension Order. It appears that Respondent Jamias was referring to Respondent Roxas together with Respondent Brion as the officials from the DILG who ordered the PNP Force to return to Makati City Hall Building 1.

12.7Atty. Bautista then informed Respondent Jamias that he could not legally implement and enforce the assailed Joint Order that preventively suspended Petitioner due to the TRO issued by the Honorable Court. However, Respondent Jamias refused to recognize the Honorable Courts lawful order, falsely claiming that he had no knowledge that a TRO had been issued, as he had not yet received a copy thereof.

12.8When Atty. Bautista attempted to give Respondent Jamias a copy of the Honorable Courts Resolution, the latter refused to receive the same, and told Atty. Bautista to serve it through official channels.12.9.Respondent Pena, on his part, showed his defiance to the Honroable Courts TRO when he told reporters that he will he will continue to act as the acting Mayor for the City of Makati until instructed otherwise. In this regard, based on its press statement, the DILG said that Respondent Pena is still acting Mayor for Makati City and it directed Respondent Pena to continue to act and perform the functions as acting Mayor in clear violation of the Honorable Courts TRO. 13.It appears from the foregoing that Respondents have no intention to comply with the TRO issued by the Honorable Court. 14.Indeed, Respondents have blatantly displayed their lack of respect for the Honorable Court as they arbitrarily, whimsically and capriciously substitute their own opinion for the Honorable Courts judicial pronouncement.

15.It is elementary that the purpose of a restraining order is to preserve the status quo until the hearing of the application for preliminary injunction. Corollarily, status quo refers to the last actual peaceable uncontested status, which preceded the pending controversy. Thus, the status quo could not be that where petitioner is preventively suspended since the suspension did not precede the present controversy; it is the controversy.

16.In the instant case, when the Honorable Court issued the TRO, the intention was to maintain the status quo at the time of filing of the Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 139453, and not at the time the TRO was issued. This is in congruence with the ruling in the case of Ong vs. COMELEC, where the Supreme Court had the opportunity to state: On the last issue, we opine that just because there has been a recount of precinct 16 and a canvass of election returns from precinct 7 prior to receipt of the Temporary Restraining Order by the COMELEC on June 25, 1992, it does not mean that this petition is already moot and academic. Private respondent must realize that when petitioner filed his petition seeking to annul the June 2, 1992 order and the June 13, 1992 resolution as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, petitioner's corresponding prayer for a temporary restraining order necessarily sought to preserve the status quo between the parties before the issuance of the said questioned order and resolution. Petitioner could not have sought the preservation of the status quo at the time the Temporary Restraining Order was received by the COMELEC on June 25, 1992 for that would have rendered nugatory petitioner's interest in reconvening the regular Provincial Board of Canvassers and prevented a recount, thus skirting the procedure laid down in the Omnibus Election Code. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)17.However, Respondents arrogantly ignore the status quo and the Honorable Courts directive, as they attempt to take the law into their own hands. 18.Worse, in a Statement to the press, the DILG likewise declared that in view of these conflicting orders, [they would] refer this matter to Secretary of Justice Leila de Lima for her opinion.

19.This is clearly a blatant attempt to violate the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers as Respondents have audaciously announced that they would be bringing the Honorable Courts Resolution under review of the Executive Branch.

20.For their utter failure to comply with the Honorable Courts Resolution granting the application for TRO, it is imperative that contempt proceedings be commenced against Respondents for their contumacious and willful disobedience to the Honorable Courts lawful order.21.Such willful, deliberate and contumacious acts and omissions of Respondents in craftily refusing compliance with the TRO is a patent and willful contempt of court as it constitutes disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court, and improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.

22.Any disobedience of a writ, process, order, judgment or command of a court, or conduct that tends to trifle with the court and impede, obstruct or otherwise degrade the administration of justice constitutes contempt of court (Republic of the Philippines vs. Lardizabal, G.R. No. L-4135, Sept. 30, 1978). The Supreme Court has ruled:

Under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person guilty of any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice may be punished for contempt, and the reason that respect for the courts guarantees their stability and permanence. Without such guaranty, the institution of the courts would be resting on a very loose and flimsy foundation, such power is essential to the proper execution and effective maintenance of judicial authority. (Andres vs. Cabrera, Adm. Matter No. L-585, 14 Dec. 1979).

23.The Supreme Court, in the case of Montenegro vs. Montenegro, G.R. No. 156829, 8 June 2004, through a decision penned by Former Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., wherein the petitioners deliberate willfulness and even malice in disobeying orders of the trial court was betrayed by his pleadings and failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the trial courts order with which he disagreed, has ruled:Contempt of court involves the doing of an act, or the failure to do an act, in such a manner as to create an affront to the court and the sovereign dignity with which it is clothed. It is defined as disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. The power to punish contempt is inherent in all courts, because it is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates of the courts; and, consequently, to the due administration of justice.

24.Further, Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, in indirect contempt, provides:

Section 3.Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. After charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt: x x x.

(b)Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court, xxx; (c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;

(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;

x x x

But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent the court from issuing process to bring the respondent into court, or from holding him in custody pending such proceedings. (Emphasis supplied)

25.Applying the cited laws in this case, Respondents have clearly committed acts, which constitute indirect contempt of court and should be made to answer therefor. Respondents continued refusal to obey the TRO issued by the Honorable Court is a clear defiance of this Honorable Courts authority and dignity and tends to bring the administration of justice into disrespect. Such actions should not be countenanced by this Honorable Court.

26.Petitioners rights pursuant to the aforesaid TRO ought to be upheld, and the terms therein enforced, if the said rights are to be enjoyed at all. It must further be stressed that the continued threat of Respondents to unlawfully remove Petitioner from office unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury suffered not only by Petitioner but by his constituents in the City of Makati, as the City Governments operations are severely hampered by the mere presence of hundreds if not thousands of members of the PNP Force at the City Hall, by Respondents obstinate resistance to the TRO.

27.Consequently, in the face of the persistent and wanton refusal of Respondents to honor and comply with the lawful order of this Honorable Court, there is therefore an urgent need to cite Respondents for indirect contempt and immediately mete out the appropriate punishment on them until they shall have complied with the TRO.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays that, upon the filing of this Petition

(1) The instant Petition be consolidated with the Petition docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 139453 pending before the Honorable Courts Sixth (6th) Division.

(2) Respondents MANUEL A. ROXAS II, personally and in his capacity as the Secretary of Interior and Local Government and Ex-Officio Chairman of the National Police Commission, RENATO BRION, personally and in his capacity as DILG-NCR Director, CARMELO VALMORIA, as the Regional Director of the NCRPO, HENRY RANOLA, as the Director of the Southern Police District, POLICE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT ELMER M. JAMIAS and ROMULO KID PEA, be cited in Contempt of Court and be meted out the maximum penalty under the law.

Petitioner likewise prays for other measures of relief as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises.

Makati City for the City of Manila, 17 March 2015.

SUBIDO PAGENTE CERTEZA

MENDOZA & BINAY

Counsel for Petitioner

5th Floor, Prince Building, 117 Rada Street

Legazpi Village, 1129 Makati City

Tel. Nos.: (632) 893-4115; Fax No.: (632) 845-0151

By:

CLARO F. CERTEZA

Roll of Attorneys No. 33002

IBP No. 852816/Lifetime/Manila II

PTR No. 4760026/1-8-15/Makati City

MCLE Exemption No. IV-000445/12-7-12/Pasig City

MARIA PATRICIA L. ALVAREZ

Roll of Attorneys No. 49629

IBP No. 960973/Lifetime/Makati City

PTR No. 4760047/1-8-15/Makati City

MCLE No. IV-001877/4-24-13/Pasig City

JOSE JULIUS R. CASTRO

Roll of Attorneys No. 63216IBP No. 968794/Lifetime/Quezon City

PTR No. 4770049/1-8-15/Makati City

Admitted to the Bar in 2013 Available at: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/metro-manila/03/16/15/kid-pena-3-hour-makati-mayor

A copy of the Petition dated 11 March 2015 docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 139453 and pending before the Honorable Courts Sixth (6th) Division is attached as Annex A

A copy of the Honorable Courts Resolution is attached as Annex B

A copy of Petitioners Ex-Parte Compliance duly stamped received by the Honorable Court is attached as Annex C.

Quoted by the Philippine Daily Inquirer from the Statement made by the DILG; Available at: HYPERLINK "http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/679212/dilg-binay-remains-suspended"http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/679212/dilg-binay-remains-suspended

A copy of Atty. JV Bautistas Affidavit is attached as Annex D.

Bacolod City Water District vs. Labayen, G.R. No. 157494, December 10, 2004

Garcia vs. Mojica, G.R. No. 139043, September 10, 1999.

G.R. No. 144197, December 13, 2000.

Available at: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/453421/news/metromanila/dilg-challenges-court-tro-vs-junjun-binay-suspension.

Section 3(b), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.

Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.