Makati City Mayor Jejomar Erwin "Junjun" Binay Jr. talks to the media on Friday inside the Makati City Hall Building. Binay said he will stay in the building despite a suspension order from the Ombudsman for his alleged involvement in the overpricing of the Makati City Hall Building II.(MNS photo)

Makati City Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr. talks to the media on Friday inside the Makati City Hall Building. Binay said he will stay in the building despite a suspension order from the Ombudsman for his alleged involvement in the overpricing of the Makati City Hall Building II. (MNS photo)

MANILA (Mabuhay) – Suspended Makati City Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay personally appeared before the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Thursday to submit his reply-affidavit to the counter-affidavit of Senator Antonio Trillanes IV in connection with Binay’s libel charge against the lawmaker.

The case involves Trillanes’ pronouncements in several media interviews that Binay resorted to bribery in order to secure two stay orders on his first suspension over the allegedly anomalous Makati City Hall Building 2.

In his 14-page reply, Binay said that contrary to Trillanes’ claims, the lawmaker “did not make the imputation of bribery out of a sincere desire to perform a legal, moral or social duty.”

Binay said Trillanes’ intention was to “vilify” Binay’s father, Vice-President Jejomar Binay, so that the elder Binay “will not win in the [presidential] elections.”

Trillanes had claimed that Binay paid two Court of Appeals (CA) justices assigned to his petition questioning the Ombudsman’s suspension order P25 million each.

The younger Binay was able to secure a temporary restraining order (TRO), and, subsequently, a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) that effectively halted the suspension order while the case is still pending with the appellate court.

Binay insists Trillanes’ pronouncements are not covered by parliamentary immunity.

Trillanes had claimed that his pronouncements against Binay is covered by parliamentary immunity under Article VI, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution.

Binay also reiterated that Trillanes, as a member of Congress, “has no oversight power over the judiciary” and should have referred his “bribery report” to the Supreme Court.

State Prosecutor Gilmarie Pacamarra gave Trillanes 15 days to submit his rejoinder-affidavit should he wish to respond to Binay’s reply-affidavit. (MNS)