Revilla seeks inhibition of Sandiganbayan justice over Bulacan project case

The Sandiganbayan is weighing a motion seeking the inhibition of Associate Justice Karl Miranda from hearing the malversation case against former senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. over the alleged P92.8-million ghost flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan.

Revilla’s camp filed an urgent motion before the court’s Third Division, chaired by Miranda, citing the justice’s relationship to lawyer Buenaventura Miranda, who previously served as counsel for former Public Works and Highways undersecretary Roberto Bernardo during a Senate inquiry into flood control projects.

Bernardo has since been named a state witness, prompting Revilla’s lawyers to raise concerns that he may testify against the former senator in the pending case.

Addressing the motion during Monday’s proceedings, Miranda said he would carefully study the request and resolve it promptly to determine whether voluntary inhibition is warranted.

Read More:  DICT confirms online posts encouraging people to cause trouble at the Senate

He also stressed that he had disclosed his ties to his brother at the outset and clarified that the Third Division did not seek the assignment of Revilla’s case.

“Following the Sandiganbayan’s internal rules, the case was raffled among the seven divisions, and it landed in our division. We did not ask that the case be given to us,” Miranda said.

The justice added that there is no legal basis for mandatory inhibition and emphasized that he is duty-bound to hear the case.

“Under applicable rules, there is no ground for my mandatory inhibition. That is the reason why I am sitting here. This is my duty,” he said.

Read More:  De Lima says senate not a ‘sanctuary’ for Bato

Miranda also assured the parties that personal relationships would not influence his judgment, saying he remains guided by the Sandiganbayan’s core values of honor, integrity, and accountability.

Earlier, Miranda disclosed that he is also friends with one of Revilla’s 11 lawyers, Ramon Esguerra.

Revilla’s spokesperson, lawyer Francesca Señga, said the motion has merit, arguing that judicial impartiality must exist not only in fact but also in appearance.

She recalled that Bernardo had testified against Revilla during the Senate inquiry and said the rules require judges to avoid circumstances that could raise doubts about neutrality.

The prosecution panel said it would oppose the motion, describing it as a delaying tactic—an allegation Señga denied, saying Revilla is simply exercising his legal rights and following proper procedure.*